"Gangster" or Just a Squad?
A city ordinance makes it illegal to be a "known member of any sandwich-eating crew that congregates in public." Marcus is arrested at the park while eating a sub with three friends. This is the case that applies and why.
Question: What is Lanzetta v. New Jersey?
Explanation: Marcus uses Card 1 (Lanzetta). The defense argues the term "sandwich crew" and being "known" to belong to one are unconstitutionally vague under the 14th Amendment.
Scenario: Tyler is suspended for making "finger guns" and saying "pew pew" under a school rule banning gestures associated with violence. He argues it was playful expression. This is governed by this case.
Question: What is Texas v. Johnson?
Explanation: Tyler uses Card 4 (Texas v. Johnson). Under the "bedrock principle," government cannot ban an idea or gesture simply because someone finds it offensive or disagreeable.
A judge issues a civil injunction banning 15 named members of "The Boba Bandits" from hanging out together in a specific 3-block area where they harass customers. This is valid because of this case.
Question: What is People v. Acuna?
Explanation: The prosecution uses Card 7 (Acuna). Targeted injunctions against named individuals in a small zone are valid to stop public nuisances and aren't unconstitutionally vague.
Miguel shouts "Taco Tuesday forever!" at 9 PM. At midnight, he gets in a fight over a spilled drink. The state claims the fight was a gang crime because of his earlier slogan. Miguel must use this case to defend himself.
Question: What is People v. Renteria?
Explanation: Miguel uses Card 11 (Renteria). The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific act was gang-motivated. Shouting a slogan hours earlier isn't direct proof the fight was gang-related.
The Silent Cafeteria Strike. A group of seniors wears neon green crocs with socks to protest cafeteria food. The school principal bans crocs entirely, claiming they cause a safety hazard on stairs. The school will win because of this case.
Question: What is United States v. O’Brien?
Explanation: The school can argue the croc ban regulates non-speech safety conduct (preventing stair falls) under the O'Brien test, rather than suppressing the cafeteria protest message.
Three teens are standing outside a boba tea shop waiting for their drinks. A police officer arrests them under a law banning "loitering with no apparent purpose."
Question: What is Chicago v. Morales?
Explanation: The defense uses Card 5 (Morales). The law is void for vagueness because standard citizens can't know what counts as "no apparent purpose," giving police arbitrary enforcement power.
Jenna burns her school's dress code handbook during a TikTok dance to protest the "no ripped jeans" policy and gets suspended for property destruction. What case applies?
Question: What is United States v. O’Brien?
Explanation: The school uses Card 2 (O'Brien). Under the 4-part O'Brien test, the school can punish the destruction of property (conduct) because their interest is unrelated to suppressing her anti-dress-code message.
A gang injunction bans named members from carrying "any cell phone, pager, or electronic device" within a 2-square-mile zone. The standard for this is explained in this case.
Question: What is In re Englebrecht (1998)?
Explanation: The defense uses Card 9 (In re Englebrecht). A complete ban on communication devices is unconstitutionally overbroad because phones are standard tools for normal expression and safety.
Devon is sentenced for graffiti. The judge uses advisory guidelines referencing "rebellious intent" to give him more time. Devon claims the phrase is too vague. What case will the prosecution use?
Question: What is Beckles v. United States?
Explanation: The prosecution uses Card 6 (Beckles). Advisory guidelines guide judicial discretion and aren't subject to void-for-vagueness challenges as long as the underlying statute sets clear boundaries.
The Fortnite Emote Ordinance. A city bans doing the "Floss" or "Default Dance" in public parks to prevent "youth gang signaling." A student is fined $100 for hitting a Fortnite dance after winning a basketball game.
Question: What is Texas v. Johnson (or People v. Englebrecht)?
Explanation: Banning popular dance moves merely because the city disapproves of them violates symbolic speech (Texas v. Johnson), and under Englebrecht, non-gang intention protects playful dance moves!
Five students arguing about whether hot dogs are sandwiches in a parking lot are ordered by police to disperse for "blocking traffic," even though no cars are around.
Question: What is Colten v. Kentucky?
Explanation: The prosecution uses Card 3 (Colten). Under the balancing test, public safety and traffic order outweigh a minimal expression interest—though the defense will argue there were no cars, so the order was unreasonable!
Carlos wears a pink flamingo t-shirt he bought at the zoo and gets stopped under a gang injunction banning "symbols associated with the Flamingo Crew." The prosecution would try to use this case.
Question: What is People v. Englebrecht (2001)?
Explanation: The prosecution uses Card 10 (Englebrecht) to show content-neutral bans are legal, BUT Carlos wins under the intent standard because he didn't intend to project gang affiliation—he just likes birds!
The city tries to extend a Boba Bandit injunction to cover the entire county of Los Angeles. This is discussed in this case.
Question: What is In re Englebrecht (1998)?
Explanation: Under Card 9, target areas can be expanded, but they cannot be broader than necessary to abate the actual nuisance. A whole county is overbroad!
To add a STEP Act gang enhancement to Keisha's shoplifting charge, prosecutors show that her crew members once got cited for jaywalking and littering. What case will the prosecution use?
Question: What is People v. Gardeley?
Explanation: The prosecution uses Card 8 (Gardeley). Under the California STEP Act, predicate offenses used to show a pattern do not need to be gang-related themselves!
The Energy Drink Syndicate. Police issue an injunction against 5 students called "The Monster Energy Posse" for throwing empty cans at passing buses. The injunction bans them from carrying "any liquid in a can or bottle" anywhere in the state.
Question: What is In re Englebrecht (1998)?
Explanation: Banning all liquids statewide is unconstitutionally overbroad. While target zones can exist, banning basic everyday items (like water bottles) across an entire state goes far beyond abating the nuisance!
A high school principal institutes a zero-tolerance policy against "hanging around hallways with suspicious intent." The problem here is this.
Question: What is "Void for Vagueness" (or Chicago v. Morales)?
Explanation: Like in Morales, the rule fails to give students fair notice of what actions are actually banned and gives administration too much arbitrary discretion.
A student wears a t-shirt that says "Homework Kills Brain Cells." The school tries to ban it, claiming it disrupts learning. The school loses this argument because of this.
Question: What is protected symbolic speech / Texas v. Johnson?
Explanation: Under Texas v. Johnson, school officials cannot censor expression merely because they disagree with the message, unless it causes a substantial disruption.
The difference between a general criminal statute and a civil court injunction when it comes to "chilling" free speech.
Question: What is "Injunctions target specific named individuals rather than the general public"?
Explanation: As established in People v. Acuna, because injunctions name specific individuals, everyday citizens don't have to worry about their speech being chilled.
A law imposes a mandatory minimum of 20 years for "participating in bad vibes." The statute is not allowed under this standard.
Question: What is "Void for Vagueness under the Due Process Clause" / Lanzetta v. New Jersey?
Explanation: Unlike advisory guidelines (Beckles), binding criminal statutes must pass the two-part vagueness test to give citizens fair notice of prohibited conduct.
The Dramatic Sigh. A student sighs dramatically during a standardized test. The administrator calls the police, and the student is charged with "Disorderly Conduct via Disruptive Breathing." The student explains that he cannot be charged with this because of this.
What is Chicago v. Morales / Due Process?
Explanation: The law/rule lacks fair notice—no ordinary student would expect a sigh to be a criminal act, leading to arbitrary enforcement by the administrator!