AP Gov Unit 3 Review: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791. They were added to address Anti-Federalist concerns that the original Constitution left individual liberties unprotected against the new federal government. Each amendment targets a specific category of government overreach, from speech and religion in the First Amendment to criminal procedure in the Fourth through Eighth Amendments.

• Civil liberties: Constitutionally established protections that prevent the government from arbitrarily interfering with individual freedoms, opinions, and property.
• Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the Constitution, enumerating specific individual rights and limiting federal government power.
• Continuous judicial interpretation: The meaning of Bill of Rights provisions is not fixed; courts apply them to new circumstances, which is why the same text can produce different outcomes across eras.

The First Amendment contains two religion clauses. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing or officially favoring a religion. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their faith. These clauses create ongoing tension: government neutrality toward religion can conflict with protecting religious practice from government interference.

• Establishment Clause: Prohibits government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion; applied to school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962).
• Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice religion; at issue in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), where the Court exempted Amish families from compulsory schooling laws.
• Lemon test: Three-part standard from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): a law must have a secular purpose, must not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and must not create excessive government entanglement with religion.
• Religious exemptions: Exceptions from generally applicable laws when compliance would substantially burden sincere religious practice.

The Court protects both verbal speech and symbolic speech, meaning nonverbal actions that communicate an idea, such as flag burning in Texas v. Johnson (1989). However, speech is not absolute. The Court has allowed time, place, and manner regulations, limits on obscenity, defamation protections, and restrictions on speech that creates a clear and present danger. Schenck v. United States (1919) is the required case: the Court upheld limits on anti-draft leaflets during wartime using the clear and present danger test.

• Symbolic speech: Nonverbal conduct that communicates a belief or idea and receives First Amendment protection, as in flag burning cases.
• Clear and present danger test: Standard from Schenck v. United States (1919) allowing speech restrictions when the words create an immediate threat to public safety or order.
• Time, place, and manner regulations: Content-neutral restrictions on when, where, or how speech occurs, such as noise limits or permit requirements for demonstrations.
• Defamation: False statements that harm another's reputation; libel is written, slander is spoken. Public officials must prove actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
• Obscenity: Material that meets the Miller v. California (1973) three-part test is not protected by the First Amendment.

The Court has built a strong presumption against prior restraint, meaning the government almost never gets to block publication before it occurs. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Nixon administration tried to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers on national security grounds. The Court ruled against the government, holding that the heavy burden of justifying prior restraint had not been met.

• Prior restraint: Government action that prevents publication or speech before it occurs; the Court applies a heavy presumption against it.
• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): The Pentagon Papers case; the Court held that the government failed to meet the high burden needed to justify blocking publication of classified documents.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held this is an individual right, not limited to militia service. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) is the required case: it applied the Second Amendment to state and local governments through selective incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The right is not unlimited; governments may still regulate firearms.

• Individual right to bear arms: Heller (2008) established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Applied the Second Amendment to states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, striking down Chicago's handgun ban.

Several amendments require the Court to weigh individual rights against government interests in safety and order. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; the Court has used it to limit the death penalty for certain categories of defendants. The Fourth Amendment restricts unreasonable searches and seizures, including digital surveillance. The Second Amendment debate involves whether firearm regulations impermissibly burden individual rights.

• Cruel and unusual punishment: Eighth Amendment prohibition applied to death penalty statutes; the Court has barred execution of juveniles and people with intellectual disabilities.
• Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; requires warrants based on probable cause; extended to digital data in cases like Riley v. California (2014).
• Probable cause: The legal standard law enforcement must meet to obtain a warrant or make a lawful arrest.

Originally, the Bill of Rights only restrained the federal government. Selective incorporation is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court has applied most Bill of Rights protections to state governments, one right at a time, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow v. New York (1925) was an early step, incorporating free speech. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the Second Amendment. The illustrative examples of bans on polygamy and peyote use show that incorporation does not mean states lose all regulatory power over conduct tied to religion.

• Selective incorporation: The Supreme Court doctrine that applies specific Bill of Rights protections to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, case by case.
• Due Process Clause (14th Amendment): The constitutional vehicle for incorporation; states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, which the Court has interpreted to include most Bill of Rights rights.
• Gitlow v. New York (1925): Early incorporation case that applied the First Amendment's free speech protection to state governments.

Procedural due process requires that government follow fair, non-arbitrary procedures before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to the federal government; the Fourteenth Amendment's applies to states. Key doctrines include the Miranda rule, which requires police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation, and the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches from being used at trial.

• Procedural due process: The requirement that government use fair, non-arbitrary methods when making decisions that affect constitutionally protected rights.
• Miranda rule: From Miranda v. Arizona (1966); police must inform suspects in custody of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney before interrogation.
• Exclusionary rule: Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in court; applied to states through Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Established the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney in criminal cases; incorporated to states.

Substantive due process asks whether a law arbitrarily infringes on a fundamental right, even if the procedures used were fair. The right to privacy is not explicitly listed in the Constitution, but the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) found it in the penumbras of several amendments. Roe v. Wade (1973) extended privacy to abortion decisions. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returning the issue to state legislatures. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) extended substantive due process protections to same-sex intimate conduct and marriage.

• Substantive due process: The doctrine that the Due Process Clause protects certain fundamental rights from government interference regardless of the procedures used.
• Right to privacy: An unenumerated right recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), found in the penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
• Ninth Amendment: States that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people; used to support unenumerated rights like privacy.
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): Overturned Roe v. Wade; held the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, leaving regulation to individual states.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state may deny any person equal protection under the law. Social movements have used this clause to challenge discrimination. The civil rights movement, represented by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, pushed for an end to racial segregation. The women's rights movement, represented by the National Organization for Women, challenged sex-based discrimination. LGBTQ advocacy used equal protection and due process arguments in cases like Obergefell. Government responses came through court rulings and legislation: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) struck down school segregation; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment; Title IX (1972) prohibited sex discrimination in federally funded education; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

• Equal Protection Clause: Fourteenth Amendment provision prohibiting states from denying any person equal protection under the law; the constitutional basis for most civil rights claims.
• Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations (Title II) and employment (Title VII).
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Declared race-based school segregation unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, overturning the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson.
• Title IX (1972): Prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The Court has not consistently protected minority rights. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld the separate but equal doctrine, allowing state-mandated racial segregation. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reversed that, ruling segregation inherently unequal. In the context of majority-minority congressional districts, the Court has held that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district lines. Shaw v. Reno (1993) allowed equal protection challenges to racially gerrymandered districts, showing that race-conscious government action can cut both ways.

• Separate but equal doctrine: Legal principle from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that upheld racial segregation as long as separate facilities were nominally equal; overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
• De jure segregation: Segregation mandated by law, as opposed to de facto segregation that results from social and economic patterns.
• Shaw v. Reno (1993): Held that majority-minority congressional districts drawn predominantly on racial lines are subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Strict scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review; applied to laws that classify by race; the government must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means.

Affirmative action refers to policies designed to address disparities in education and employment tied to race, sex, national origin, disability, or age. The constitutional debate centers on whether race-conscious policies violate the Equal Protection Clause. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) struck down rigid racial quotas in admissions but allowed race as one factor. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld holistic race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, finding diversity a compelling interest. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) struck down a point-based system that automatically awarded points for race. The Court applies strict scrutiny to all racial classifications, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored means.

• Affirmative action: Policies intended to address workplace and educational disparities related to race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, and age.
• Bakke v. University of California (1978): Struck down rigid racial quotas in university admissions but permitted race as one factor in a holistic review.
• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Upheld race-conscious holistic admissions at the University of Michigan Law School; diversity found to be a compelling governmental interest.
• Intermediate scrutiny: Standard applied to sex-based classifications; the government must show the law serves an important interest and is substantially related to achieving it.