The U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans a large constellation of rights and liberties. The terms “civil liberties” and “civil rights” are often used interchangeably in this context, although their meanings are somewhat different.
Civil liberties are “freedoms” that are guaranteed to the individual; they take the form of negative constraints on the power of government [ i.e
., 1st
Amendment freedoms - speech, press, religion]. They declare what the government CANNOT DO.
Civil rights are the powers or privileges guaranteed to the individual and are protected from arbitrary removal at the hands of government of other individuals [ i.e.
, right to vote, right to jury trial in criminal cases].
Today, civil rights have also come to include the objectives of laws that further these and other values. For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 furthered the value of equality by establishing prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations and employment practices. Civil rights declare what the government MUST DO or PROVIDE.

When we refer to both civil liberties and civil rights under the U.S.
Constitution, we mean the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.* These include: freedom of religion
•freedom of the press
• freedom of speech
•right to peaceably assemble
•right to petition government for redress of grievances
• right to privacy
• rights of the criminally accused/requirement of “due process of law”
• the guarantee of equal protection of the laws
*There are also several civil liberties/rights outlined in the main body of the
Constitution [i.e., prohibition against ex post facto laws and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus among others]. Additionally, many state constitutions contain bills of rights, protecting many of the same rights and liberties associated with the U.S. Constitution.

Perceived Right of the individual
Perceived
“compelling state interest”*
[i.e., right to privacy, right of free speech, right of free worship, etc.]
[usually arguments fall under state police power - power to protect public safety and morals]
*The state must show why its interest is compelling enough to justify regulation of the individual’s right.

Griswold v Connecticut [1965]
-the penumbras of the Bill of Rights
-
”compelling state interest”
Roe v Wade [1973]
Texas’ arguments - the state police power
the Court’s decision - the viability standard after Roe:
• Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth [1976]
• Maher v Roe [1977]
• City of Akron v Akron Center for Reproductive Health [1983]
• Thornburgh v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [1986]
• Webster v Reproductive Health Services [1989]; Rust v Sullivan [1991]
• Planned Parenthood v Casey [1992]

How inclusive is the right to privacy?
Specifically, what activities or actions are considered to have constitutional protection?
contraceptives
Griswold v
Connecticut
abortion
Roe v Wade qualified sexual orientation
Bowers v
Hardwick right-to-die privacy in the workplace
In Re Quinlan
In Re Conroy
[New Jersey
State Supreme
Court]
[working conditions]
?
living wills upheld by
USSC
?

Rights of the Criminally-Accused:
Requirements of ‘Due Process of Law
The Exclusionary Rule
• Weeks v U.S. [1914]
• Mapp v Ohio [1961]
“Good Faith” Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
• U.S. v Leon [1984] -“hot pursuit” “inevitable discovery”
Self-Incrimination
• Miranda v Arizona [1966]
Right to Counsel
• Gideon v Wainwright [1963]
Capital Punishment
• Furman v Georgia [1972]
• Gregg v Georgia [1976]

Free Exercise Clause “Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.”
• beliefs are absolutely protected, but practices may be restricted
• valid secular test: individuals must comply with laws restricting religious practices, provided the law is valid and neutral
Sherbert v Verner [1963]
Wisconsin v Yoder [1972]
Bob Jones University v the United States [1983]
Goldman v Weinberger [1986]
City of Boerne v Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio [1997]
• classic free exercise cases:
Minersville School District v Gobitis [1940]
West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette [1943]

Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
3 interpretations
“the Lemon test”
Lemon v Kurtzman [1971]
-Tilton v Richardson [1971]
-Epperson v Arkansas [1968]; McClean v Arkansas [1982]
-Engel v Vitale [1962]; School District of Abington Township v
Schempp [1963], Murray v Curtlett [1963]
-Wallace v Jaffree [1985]
McGowen v Maryland/Braunfeld v Brown [1961]
Allegheny County v ACLU, Greater Pittsburg Chapter [1989]

Freedom of Speech and Expression
• clear and present danger test Schenck v U.S. [1919]
• bad tendency test Gitlow v New York [1925]
• preferred freedoms test Brandenburg v Ohio [1969]
Unprotected Speech
• “fighting words” Chaplinsky v New Hampshire [1942]; Terminello v Chicago [1949 ]
• obscenity Roth v U.S. [1957]; Miller v California [1973]
• slander/libel New York Times v Sullivan [1964]; Hustler Magazine v Falwell [1988 ]
Symbolic Expression
• Tinker v Des Moines ISD [1969] Texas v Johnson [1989]
Unacceptable restrictions
• prior restraint
• overbreadth
• least drastic means
• content neutral