AP GOV SUPREME COURTS CASES LALLY

Blacks, whether free or slaves, cannot be U.S. citizens

American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights; first application of the strict scrutiny test

The companion case to Brown, which held that segregated schools in the District of Columbia violated the 5th Amendment.

Laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional

The federal government may prohibit discrimination in housing by private parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners was considered cruel and unusual punishment and abolished racial segregation in prison (Mississsippi)

Race based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The decision leaves the door open to some race usage in admission decisions

Race based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), is subject to strict judicial scrutiny

A narrowly tailored use of race in student admission decisions may be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as a diverse student body is beneficial for all students

Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute giving benefits to the spouses of male, but not female members of the uniformed services (on the assumption that only the former were dependent) is unconstitutional.

Setting different minimum ages according to sex (female 18, male 21) to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination, contrary to the equal protection clause.

A state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; this statute was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court as a violation of the Georgia State Constitution in the case of Powell v. Georgia (actually Powell v. State). Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.

A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause).

Texas law that prohibits homosexuals from engaging in consensual sodomy in private is prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment due process clause as lacking a rational basis.

Married people are entitled to use contraception and making it a crime to sell to them same is unconstitutional. (A later case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, extended this to unmarried adults.)