COHEN final POSC 225
Baron v Baltimore (Baron-Baltimore-bill of rights) - correct answer ✔Allowed
states to continue to practice the law as they saw fit w/out being subjected to
bill of rights
Schenck v US (Schenck-speech) - correct answer ✔Ruled Congress could
only regulate speech when protecting threatening evils that show a "clear &
present danger"
Stromberg v Cali (Stromberg-students-soviet flag) - correct answer ✔Ruled
plaintiff couldn't be fired for teaching student to pledge allegiance to soviet
union's flag bc it didn't constitute clear & present danger
Texas v Johnson (texas-express) - correct answer ✔Ruled flag burning was
legal bc it was expression of political opinion
Roth v US (roth-redeeming) - correct answer ✔Ruled work of art may be
deemed obscene when it is w/out redeeming social/cultural content according
to contemporary standards; ambiguous law
Miller v Cali (Cali-community standards) - correct answer ✔ruled that
whether something is obscene is to determinate by local communities rather
than states
Near v Minnesota (Near-nat'l security) - correct answer ✔rued government
can't sensor media unless it was an issue of nat'l security
, New York Times v US (PPP) - correct answer ✔ruled gov't didn't have
enough proof that publication of Pentagon Papers jeopardized nat'l security;
wouldn't exercise prior restrain
New York Times v Sullivan (sullivan-sue-slander-statements) - correct
answer ✔ruled that untruthful statements are not libel unless errors are made
knowingly & w/ reckless damage for the truth; public figures forfeit their right to
sue for libel and slander
Lemon v Kurtzman (lemon test) - correct answer ✔determines whether law
maintains separation of church and state; "lemon test" says law must have
nonreligious purpose, must not inhibit/advance a religion, & can't be entangled
in religion
*ambiguous, eventually replaced by neutrality test
Engel v Vitale (engel-illegal) - correct answer ✔ruled official/encouraged
school prayer was illegal bc schools are gov't funded
School district of Abington Township v Schempp (ab-bible) - correct answer
✔Ruled school-sponsored bible study was unconstitutional in schools
Cantwell v Connecticut (Cantwel-Connecticut-compelling) - correct answer
✔Ruled gov't must have "compelling gov't interest" when rejecting the free
exercise of religion clause
*ex. illegal drugs for religious reasons not protected by constitution
Free exercise clause - correct answer ✔Congress may not pass any
legislation prohibiting free exercise of religion
Baron v Baltimore (Baron-Baltimore-bill of rights) - correct answer ✔Allowed
states to continue to practice the law as they saw fit w/out being subjected to
bill of rights
Schenck v US (Schenck-speech) - correct answer ✔Ruled Congress could
only regulate speech when protecting threatening evils that show a "clear &
present danger"
Stromberg v Cali (Stromberg-students-soviet flag) - correct answer ✔Ruled
plaintiff couldn't be fired for teaching student to pledge allegiance to soviet
union's flag bc it didn't constitute clear & present danger
Texas v Johnson (texas-express) - correct answer ✔Ruled flag burning was
legal bc it was expression of political opinion
Roth v US (roth-redeeming) - correct answer ✔Ruled work of art may be
deemed obscene when it is w/out redeeming social/cultural content according
to contemporary standards; ambiguous law
Miller v Cali (Cali-community standards) - correct answer ✔ruled that
whether something is obscene is to determinate by local communities rather
than states
Near v Minnesota (Near-nat'l security) - correct answer ✔rued government
can't sensor media unless it was an issue of nat'l security
, New York Times v US (PPP) - correct answer ✔ruled gov't didn't have
enough proof that publication of Pentagon Papers jeopardized nat'l security;
wouldn't exercise prior restrain
New York Times v Sullivan (sullivan-sue-slander-statements) - correct
answer ✔ruled that untruthful statements are not libel unless errors are made
knowingly & w/ reckless damage for the truth; public figures forfeit their right to
sue for libel and slander
Lemon v Kurtzman (lemon test) - correct answer ✔determines whether law
maintains separation of church and state; "lemon test" says law must have
nonreligious purpose, must not inhibit/advance a religion, & can't be entangled
in religion
*ambiguous, eventually replaced by neutrality test
Engel v Vitale (engel-illegal) - correct answer ✔ruled official/encouraged
school prayer was illegal bc schools are gov't funded
School district of Abington Township v Schempp (ab-bible) - correct answer
✔Ruled school-sponsored bible study was unconstitutional in schools
Cantwell v Connecticut (Cantwel-Connecticut-compelling) - correct answer
✔Ruled gov't must have "compelling gov't interest" when rejecting the free
exercise of religion clause
*ex. illegal drugs for religious reasons not protected by constitution
Free exercise clause - correct answer ✔Congress may not pass any
legislation prohibiting free exercise of religion
