Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Flashcards

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Which specific section did the Court invalidate, and on what constitutional grounds?

Answer: Section 4(b) (coverage formula), because it violated principles of equal state sovereignty under the Constitution

The Court struck down Section 4(b), the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions needed federal preclearance before changing voting laws. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the formula relied on 40-year-old data and violated the principle of equal sovereignty among states — it treated some states differently from others without a current justification. Section 5 (preclearance) technically remained on the books but became unenforceable without a valid coverage formula.

The Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) that the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal proceedings. Which constitutional doctrine made this possible?

Answer: Selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Mapp v. Ohio applied the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to states via selective incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court had not adopted 'total incorporation' (applying the entire Bill of Rights at once) — that view, advocated by Justice Black, was rejected. Instead, the Court applies rights selectively, one at a time, when they are 'fundamental to ordered liberty.' The Privileges or Immunities Clause was largely gutted by the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873).

Florida's Constitution provides a right of privacy in Article I, Section 23. How does this provision differ most significantly from the federal constitutional right to privacy?

Answer: Florida's right is explicitly textual and self-executing, while the federal right is judicially implied from penumbras and emanations of other amendments

Florida's right to privacy (Art. I, §23) is explicitly written into the state constitution and is self-executing, meaning courts can enforce it without additional legislation. The federal right to privacy, by contrast, was derived by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) from the 'penumbras and emanations' of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments — it is judicially inferred, not textually stated. This textual explicitness has led Florida courts to apply a broader privacy right in some contexts, including medical and personal decisions.

Under the strict scrutiny standard applied to fundamental rights and suspect classifications, which of the following government actions would MOST LIKELY survive constitutional challenge?

Answer: A federal program providing race-conscious admission preferences at military academies to remedy documented historical exclusion from officer ranks

Race-conscious remedial programs in military contexts have received the Court's most deferential treatment under strict scrutiny. In Grutter v. Bollinger and related cases, the Court recognized compelling interests in diversity, and the military's national security mission adds further weight. The other options are more likely to fail: blanket protest exclusion zones lack narrow tailoring (McCullen v. Coakley), photo ID laws without free alternatives have been challenged as poll tax equivalents, and selective bilingual ballot requirements may raise equal protection issues of their own.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) expanded the interpretation of 'public use' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Which of the following scenarios is MOST analogous to the taking upheld in Kelo and would therefore be constitutionally permissible under that precedent?

Answer: A state seizing a private farm to transfer to a private developer whose planned mixed-use project is expected to generate tax revenue and jobs

Kelo held that economic development — transferring private property to another private party to generate tax revenue, jobs, and community revitalization — constitutes a permissible 'public use' under the Fifth Amendment. The Court deferred to the city's development plan even though the property would end up in private hands. Option B mirrors this exactly: a transfer to a private developer for economic development. Options A, C, and D involve direct public ownership or use (fire station, conservation, road widening), which were already uncontroversially valid takings before Kelo.

In the context of First Amendment free speech protections, which doctrine holds that a law regulating speech is unconstitutional if it restricts substantially more protected speech than unprotected speech, even if its stated target is unprotected?

Answer: The overbreadth doctrine

The overbreadth doctrine allows a person to challenge a law as facially unconstitutional — even if their own speech could be legitimately regulated — when the law is drawn so broadly that it sweeps in a substantial amount of protected expression along with the unprotected. This doctrine is unique to First Amendment law; normally a party can only challenge a law as applied to their own conduct. By contrast, the 'clear and present danger' test evaluates whether specific speech poses an imminent threat; 'prior restraint' prohibits advance censorship; and the 'secondary effects' doctrine allows content-neutral regulation of businesses like adult theaters based on their impact on the surrounding area.