Select one of the landmark supreme court cases (cannot duplicate anyone else's case) and answer the following.
1. Name and date of Case
2. 3 facts to give background of case
3. Describe the question being decided by the Supreme Court
4. How did the Supreme Court decide?
5. What was the significance of the decision?
1. Schenck v. United States (1919)
ReplyDelete2. During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
3. Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
4. Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation.
5. The decision made it clear that freedom of speech can be limited during wartime.
Sumeyye Islamoglu
6th
1. Kent v. Dulles (1958)
ReplyDelete2. Rockwell Kent applied for and was refused a passport to visit England. The Director instructed Kent to submit an affidavit as to whether he was a current or past Communist. When he refused the affidavit, the Passport Department advised Kent that no further action would be taken on his passport request until he satisfied the affidavit requirement.
3. Could the Executive's Passport Department defer or refuse the issuance of passports to individuals suspected of being Communists or of traveling abroad to further Communist causes?
4. The Court decided that the right to travel is an inherent element of liberty that cannot be denied to the American citizens.
5. The decision declared that the Freedom to travel is an important aspect of the citizen's liberty.
Nia Eugene
6th period
1. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
ReplyDelete2. Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. This case was historical and controversial.
3.Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?
4.the court decided that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by the Fourth Amendment, inadmissible in a state court.
5. Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.
Katarina Shanar
6th period
1) Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
ReplyDelete2a) A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death.
2b) On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction.
2c) Gregg challenged his death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the 8th & 14th Amendments.
3) Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?
4) In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances.
5) Capital punishment (i.e., the death penalty) was constitutional so long as the procedures involved in its execution did not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
Linda Zhu (7th pd)
1.Robinson v. California (1962)
ReplyDelete2. A.A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics."
B.Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail.
C.A state appellate court affirmed Robinson's conviction on appeal.
3.Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
4.the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
5.The court argued that the state could not punish persons merely because of their "status" of addiction.
Mykaela Llacar
6th
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
ReplyDelete2. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold bill) established a ban on unrestricted donations ("soft money") made directly to political parties. It also limited the amount of advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations could do in the 60 days leading up to an election, thus restricting political parties' use of funds for advertising on behalf of the candidates. Controversies eventually led to a judge panel striking down parts of the Campaign Finance Reform Act's ban on soft money, leading to a Supreme Court case to decide the extent of congressional authority that should be allowed in the situation.
3. Does the "soft money" ban of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak?
4. The Court answered "no" in a 5-to-4 decision and held that the restriction on free speech was minimal.
5. Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions rather than with campaign expenditures, Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and banned the use of "soft" money by national party committees and by parties affecting federal elections.
Ashwini Prabhu
Period 6
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
ReplyDelete2. Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his house and brought directly to the police station where he was questioned about his connection with a kidnapping and rape. Miranda gave a written confession of his involvement, however, the police officers had not told Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty, and on appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona declared that Miranda’s constitutional rights were n't violated because he did not specifically request counsel.
3. Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
4. The Court answered with a 5-4 majority that the 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination was applicable in all situations.
5. This decision is significant because it declared that any information and statements given to an official without being informed of one's rights of having an attorney present with them must be dismissed.
Angie Mancino
period 6
1. Roe v. Wade (1973)
ReplyDelete2. • In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.
• In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime, though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."
• Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider's business.
3. Whether or not Texas abortion laws were constitutional and in accordance of the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
4. The Court found that “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.”
5. Abortion is now considered a constitutional right.
Henry Zhang
7th Period
1. Powell v. Alabama (1932)
ReplyDelete2. 9 black youths were accused of raping 2 white women.
A total of three trials took one day and all nine were
sentenced to death.
This case was decided together with Patterson v. Alabama
and Weems v. Alabama.
3. Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
4. The Court ruled that indigent members of society (in this case, the Scottsboro Boys), when charged with a capital crime, must be given competent counsel at the expense of the public.
5. This case was an early example of national constitutional protection in the field of criminal justice.
Bonita Hall
6th Period
1. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
ReplyDelete2. Gregory Lee Johnson burned an american flag. This was a protest against the Reagan administration. He was sentenced and then it was appealed so it was sent to the Supreme Court.
3. Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
4. The court ruled that burning the flag was protected expression by the first admendment.
5. The Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
Hunter Boyd
Period 6
1.) Nix v. Williams (1984)
ReplyDelete2.) - Williams was arrested for the murder of a yen year old girl.
- Williams help lead the searches to the child’s body.
- The Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.
3.) Should the evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained?
4.) no. Relied on the “inevitable discovery doctrine” as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.
5.) the significance of the decision was the reason it was ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court, and centered around the legal ramifications of admitting evidence that has been illegally obtained.
Elizabeth Melchor
6th period
1) Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
ReplyDelete2) -Acting on behalf of prescription drug consumers, the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council challenged a Virginia statute that declared it unprofessional conduct for licensed pharmacists to advertise their prescription drug prices.
-On appeal from an adverse ruling by a three-judge District Court panel, the Supreme Court granted the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy review.
-The Commonwealth of Virginia had a statute which prohibited pharmacists from advertising prescription drug prices, providing that those who did would be guilty of “unprofessional conduct”.
3) Is a statutory ban on advertising prescription drug prices by licensed pharmacists a violation of "commercial speech" under the First Amendment?
4) The Court held that the First Amendment protects willing speakers and willing listeners equally.
5) The Court concluded that although the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy has a legitimate interest in preserving professionalism among its members, it may not do so at the expense of public knowledge about lawful competitive pricing terms.
Maheen Meraj
6th period
1. United States V. O’Brien (1968)
ReplyDelete2. David O’Brien burned his draft card in a Boston Court House. He claimed that it was an expression of his opposition to the war. He was then convicted under a federal law that made destruction or mutilation of draft cards a crime.
3. Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O’Brien’s freedom of speech?
4. Speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court decided O’Brien was not protected by the first amendment in the situation
5. The regulation is justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government; if it furthers governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to suppressing the freedom of speech and if the restriction on the alleged First Amendment freedoms are not greater than the furtherance of the interest.
Andrew Yang
7th
1.Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
ReplyDelete2.
a).The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist.
b).Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.
c).The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people.
3. Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?
4. Through Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court stated that applying New Jersey's public accommodations law for Dale would violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association.
5. It gave the Boy Scouts of America to bar people that did were not aligned with their values as the court decided it was violating the organization First Amendments rights.
Paul Manavalan
7th
1. Buckley V. Valeo (1976)
ReplyDelete2.A) The case arose in January 1975 when a coalition of plaintiffs that included Sen. James L. Buckley of New York filed suit in U.S. district court alleging, among other claims, that FECA’s contribution and expenditure limitations violated the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.
B)District courts certified (requested resolution of) the constitutional questions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld almost all provisions of the law.
C) Plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on November 10.
3.) Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
4) Buckley v. Valeo, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 30, 1976, struck down provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)—as amended in 1974—that had imposed limits on various types of expenditures by or on behalf of candidates for federal office.
5) imposed limits on various types of expenditures by or on behalf of candidates for federal office.
Victoria (TORI) Johnson
6th
1. South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
ReplyDelete2. - Congress wanted to make the minimum drinking age law
to apply for every state nationwide
- Congress decided to enact a legislation that ordered
the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five
percent of federal highway funds from states that did
not adopt the law
- South Dakota was one of the states that allowed
persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol
3. Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age?
4. The decision of the Court held that Congress was within constitutional bounds, and found the legislation of the Congress to be in pursuit of the "general welfare."
5. The significance of this case is the clarification of the 21st amendment: it does not prohibit the congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly.
Michael Ibay
7th Period
1)Smith v. Doe(2003)
ReplyDelete2)-Questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements.
-John Does I and II were convicted of aggravated assault before the act's passage and filed suit, claiming the act was punitive and violated the ex post facto clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
- The district court ruled against the Does, ruling that the act was non-punitive.
3) The question is if the intention was to impose a punishment or "civil proceedings." If the intention was to punish, that ends the inquiry. If the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and non-punitive, the Court must examine whether the scheme is so punitive as to negate the State's intention to deem it civil.
4) The dissenting justices contented that the law was punitive and imposed severe deprivations of liberty.
5) The decision was significant in that it made clear beyond peradventure that these unique consequences of conviction of a sex offense are punitive. In other words, it clarified how a certain punishment to a peculiar offense was to be carried out.
Henry Feng
7th Period
1.Thompson v. Western States Medical Center(2002)
ReplyDelete2.The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) exempts "compounded drugs," or drugs in which a pharmacist or doctor has combined, mixed, or altered ingredients to create a medication tailored to an individual patient's needs.The restrictions included that the prescription be unsolicited and that the providers not advertise or promote the compounding of any particular drug, class of drug, or type of drug. Advertising and solicitation provisions, arguing that they violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
3.Do the prohibitions in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 with regard to soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs violate the First Amendment?
4.Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the FDAMA's provisions amounted to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech.
5.The speech restrictions allegedly served governmental interests in permitting drug compounding it had not been demonstrated that the speech restrictions were not more extensive than necessary to serve such interests.
Camryn Pugh 6th period.
1. Alaska vs. United States (2005)
ReplyDelete2.Alaska and the United States disputed ownership of two areas of submerged lands; enclaves under the Alexander Archipelago, and lands beneath the inland waters of Glacier Bay. Alaska claimed the archipelago waters under the Submerged Lands Act, which entitled states to submerged lands three miles seaward of their coastline and to land beneath inland navigable waters. The dispute over the submerged lands under Glacier Bay centered on the United States' claim that, at the time Alaska gained statehood, those lands were intended for a national monument.
3.Do specific submerged lands underlying the Alexander Archipelago and Glacier Bay belong to Alaska or the federal government?
4. In an opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court unanimously concluded that the Alexander Archipelago waters were not inland waters and thus belonged to the federal government.
5. The Court reasoned that the archipelago waters were neither historic inland waters nor inland waters under the juridical bay theory. The decision concluded that judgement is held to the national government, and not the state of Alaska.
Luke Leblanc 7th period
1. Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
ReplyDelete2. Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
4. In a 4-3 majority decision for the University of Texas it was concluded that educational diversity is a compelling interest as long as it is expressed as a concrete and precise goal that is neither a quota of minority students nor an amorphous idea of diversity
5. This court case, had it gone in favor of Fisher would have made affirmative action illegal in public schools across the nation in the debate about equal protection vs diversity.
Dhilan Patel
7th Period
1. Loving vs. Virginia (1958)
ReplyDelete2. In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in District of Columbia.
When the Lovings returned to Virginia, the couple was charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter- racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced for a year in jail and the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years.
3.Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
4.In a unimanous decision, the the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
5.The significance of the court case violated the fourteen amendment stating clearly that the freedom to marry or not marry or marry same or different race cannot be restricted by the state. Allowing choice of marriage by the Individuals With no restrictions of the state.
Amaani Nazarali-6th Period
1. United States V United Foods, Inc. (2001)
ReplyDelete2. (1) It is mandates that mushroom handlers pay for assessments that promote mushroom sales. (2) The United Foods, Inc. choose to not pay for the assessment because it violated the First Amendment. (3) The court used conclusions determined from Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., to reach a verdict.
3. Is the First Amendment violated by requiring mushroom producers to pay for advertising assessments?
4. The supreme court used decisions reached in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., to reach a final decision.
5. The significance was that the court had to involve themselves in a commercial issue that violated the rights of mushroom producers.
Juliana Quintana
6th Period
1. Virginia v. Black (2003)
ReplyDelete2. Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O'Mara were convicted separately of violating a Virginia statute that makes it a felony to burn crosses with intent to intimidate other groups. Black objected on First Amendment grounds to a jury instruction that cross burning by itself is sufficient evidence from which the required "intent to intimidate" could be inferred. The Virginia Supreme Court held that the cross-burning statute is unconstitutional on its face and that the prima facie evidence provision renders the statute overbroad.
3. Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?
4. The Supreme Court decided that the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form.
5. This concluded that the Virginia statute is unconstitutional and therefore concurred in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirmed the invalidation of Black's conviction.
Brandon Wong 7th
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) New York Times Company v. United States (1971)
ReplyDelete2a) The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam.
2b) The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security.
2c) This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.
3) Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?
4) Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
5) The decision made it clear that the government has little to no control over the content the media broadcasts.
Jerin Jose
DeletePeriod 07
1. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)
ReplyDelete2. Prior to selecting a candidate for the 1986 senatorial election, the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee purchased radio advertisements attacking Timothy Wirth, the Democratic Party’s likely candidate. The Committee defended themselves by arguing that since the advertisement had not endorsed or advocated for a specific candidate, it was not in violation of the provision. In the court's view, the limits imposed on party expenditures served as justifiable infringements of the First Amendment rights of party committees in an effort to preserve the integrity of elections. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court.
3. Do the federal campaign-financing limits on the amount of money political parties may spend on congressional races, as established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, violate First Amendment rights when applied to expenditures a political party has made independently of any candidate's campaign?
4. In a 7-2 plurality decision announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the United States Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by political parties made without coordination of a candidate are protected by the First Amendment.
5. The significance was that this provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign.
1. Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
ReplyDelete2. The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education, acting contrary to the recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff, ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. The Board said such books were "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." Acting through his friend Francis Pico, and on behalf of several other students, Steven Pico brought suit in federal district court challenging the Board's decision to remove the books. The Board won; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Board petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
3. Did the Board of Education's decision to ban certain books from its junior high and high school libraries, based on their content, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
4. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that as centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. Therefore, the Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea content.
5. The Decision is significant because it declared that the school libraries have the rights of free speech and press.
Angela Fang Period 6
1. Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Falvo (2001-2002)
ReplyDelete2. Kristja J. Falvo requested that the district ban peer grading because the exposure of their grades embarrassed them. When the district declined, Falvo claimed peer editing violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act allows funds to be withheld from school districts that allows students' documents (i.e. grades) to be released without parent permission.
3. The question was asking if peer editing was a oblation of FERPA.
4. The Supreme Court decided an unanimous no.
5. This case states thatgraded items did not constitute education records protected by FERPA until a teacher collected the grades on the students' papers or other items and recorded the grades in the teacher's grade book.
Keegan Jones 7th
1. Linkmark V. Willingboro (1977)
ReplyDelete2. - A township ordinance prohibiting the posting of real estate "For Sale" and "Sold" signs for the purpose of stemming what the township perceived as the flight of white homeowners from a racially integrated community
- The first amendment disables the township from achieving from restricting the truth of commercial information
- The ordinance is not concerned with the placement or manner of the signs, but rather the types of signs based on their content
3. The question that is concerns this situation is whether the First Amendment permits a "municipality" to prohibit the posting of "For Sale" or "Sold" signs when the "municipality" acts to stem what it perceives as the flight of white homeowners from a racially integrated community.
4. The court granted a declaration of unconstitutionality but the court of appeals reversed this decision
5. The fact that sales remained the same months after this ordinance was enacted shows that the public was not as affected over the issue as people thought they were, even though many thought that banning signs would fuel public anxiety about sales and the economy.
1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
ReplyDelete2.In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
3.Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
4.In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA
5.Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Milton Moore
6th period
1. Miller v. California (1972)
ReplyDelete2. Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.
3. The question of this case was whether the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?
4. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
5. It ruled that obscene materials could not be protected under the 1st amendment, therefore ruling out things that will not protected under the bill of rights.
1. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ReplyDelete2. - This case was decided by the Rehnquist court.
- Cathy Kuhlmeier and two former Hazelwood East students brought this case to court.
-Robert Reynolds, principal , found two articles in his high schools newspaper inappropriate,ordering which to be withheld from publication.
3. The question is did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment.
4. 5-3 decision for Hazelwood school district (petitioner)
5. The court held that the schools must hold their students to high standards in terms of their speech, Therefore, doesn't violate their freedom of speech.
Danielle Davis 6th
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ReplyDeleteStudents at the Hazelwood East high School are responsible for the writing and editing of their school newspaper. Their principle, Cathy Kuhlmeier found two articles of the newspaper inappropriate and withheld the publication until the pages were fixed. The students that wrote the article and Kuhlmeier went to court based on this issue. The question that the court was trying to figure out was did the principal's removal of the articles violate the students' rights due to the First Amendment allowing for freedom of press. The supreme court decided 5-3, siding with Kuhlmeier as the First Amendment was not offended by Kuhlmeier editing the newspaper.
Ayush Singh, 6th Period
Bush v Gore 2000
ReplyDeleteOn November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes. The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327. According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, later analysis showed that a total of 18 counties—accounting for a quarter of all votes cast in Florida did not carry out the legally mandated machine recounnt
what was being decided was a court order recount constitutional
Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional.
The decision would decide who won the presidential election
Reece lasris
Delete1. Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
ReplyDelete2.In 2002, Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law.
3.Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
4.The Court stated that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ.
5.The verdict of Boumediene v. Bush stated that all prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, even those who were suspected of terrorism are allowed to question the reasoning behind their imprisonment.
Jacob Roy
7th Period
1.Taylor v. Louisiana ( January 21, 1975)
ReplyDelete2. Took place in an appellate court after being charged with aggravated kidnaping . A male convict felt he was not served a fair trial because their were no women on the jury. Their was an exclusion of women from jury panels.
3. The question was whether or not excluding certain women was unconstitutional because it wasn't a fair jury.
4. The court ruled it was unconstitutional.
5. It made it possible for more women to be eligible to be part of juries
Justin Brewer 6th
1. Bond v. United States (2014)
ReplyDelete2. Bond's husband was having an affair with her friend. Bond stole toxic chemicals and placed them on her friends doorknob, car door, and mail box. Bond was charged with multiple crimes.
3. Does Congress have the authority to enact legislation that enforces a treaty but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and intrudes on traditional state prerogatives?
4. The Court held that federal law typically does not intrude on the ability of states to regulate local matters, and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act is not an exception to that general rule. Therefor, Bond cannot be charged with the act.
5. The ruling that she could not be charged with the chemical weapons act made it a state/local case and reduced the sentence.
Matthew Benton 6th
The name of the case is John Doe #1 vs. Reed which was decided in 2010. Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Washington state from making referendum petitions available under the Public Record Arts (PRA). This was all in response to a petition titled “Preserve Marriage, Protect Children.” They argued the PRA violates the First Amendment right of petitioners since it doesn’t serve a compelling government interest. The question being decided by the Supreme Court was whether the First Amendment required strict scrutiny when the state released the identifying information of petitioners. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ended up deciding that under intermediate scrutiny, the interests of the state are sufficiently important to justify the law’s limitation on First Amendment rights. The significance of the decision is it has caused reluctance among some people to petition.
ReplyDeleteThe name of the case is John Doe #1 vs. Reed which was decided in 2010. Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Washington state from making referendum petitions available under the Public Record Arts (PRA). This was all in response to a petition titled “Preserve Marriage, Protect Children.” They argued the PRA violates the First Amendment right of petitioners since it doesn’t serve a compelling government interest. The question being decided by the Supreme Court was whether the First Amendment required strict scrutiny when the state released the identifying information of petitioners and whether the public disclosure was of a government interest and whether the petitioners met all requirements for a preliminary disjunction. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ended up deciding that under intermediate scrutiny, the interests of the state are sufficiently important to justify the law’s limitation on First Amendment rights. The significance of the decision is it has caused reluctance among some people to petition.
ReplyDeleteDivya Aaloori-6th period
1. Abrams v. United States (1919)
ReplyDelete2. The defendants of the case were convicted on the basis of two leaflets they had printed. They threw these leaflets from the windows of a building in New York City. One of the leaflets ojpposed the sending of American troops into Russia with the word "revolutionists" on it. The other one was written in Yiddish and opposed the war and US efforts to hinder the Russian Revolution.
3. Is it a criminal offense to urge the decrease of production of materials necessary for a war in order to hinder it?
4. The Supreme Court determined this case went against the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. The defendants were sentenced to 10 and 20 years in prison.
5. The ruling is significant because it determined what acts were protected by the First Amendment, and what weren't. In this case, the defendants were not protected by the First Amendment.
1. Griswold v. Connecticut
ReplyDelete2. This case originated as a provision of the Comstock Act of 1873. This law fined people for doing anything to prevent conception, ie abortion/birth control. In 1914, Margaret Sanger openly challenged public consensus on contraception and helped influence the CBCL to develop planned parenthood clinics.
3.Can a state ban the use of birth control?
4.The supreme court ruled 7-2, that the Connecticut state law banning the use of contraceptives violated the marital privacy of a couple.
5. The decision was significant because it ended the ban on the use of contraceptives, and it was instrumental in helping start Planned Parenthood centers.
Benjamin Sunny, 6th Period
The case was in 1965
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLinmark v. Willingboro (March 2, 1977)
ReplyDeleteTownship ordinance prohibiting the posting of real estate "For Sale" and "Sold" signs.
Stemmed from what the town perceived as white homeowners fleeing from a racially integrated community
First amendment disabled the township from achieving its objective
The question being decided was whether the First Amendment was given a municipality to prohibit the posting of these signs.
The court granted a declaration of unconstitutionality, but a divided Court of Appeals reversed.
The significance of the decision was that it got reversed and was granted certiorari
Erek Castro 7th
1. Kelo V. New London (Feb. 22, 2005)
ReplyDelete2. - A city in Connecticut (New London) used emminent domain to sieze land and sell to private developers
- kelo and others who's land was siezed sued the city for violating the fifth amendment
- property owners argued that taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use
3. Is a city breaking the 5th amendment if they take private property and sell it to a private developer in an effort to make jobs for the community.
4. Supreme Court said that it was ok for the city to do this because they are planning for the profit of the members of the community and not just a handful of individuals.
5. The Fifth Amendment didn't mean literal public use but rather to interpret the phrase "public use" as loosely as possible
United States v. The American Library Association
ReplyDeleteIt was argued on March 5, 2003 and it was decided on June 23, 2003. Congress passed the CPIA law which causes libraries to have internet filtering softwares to prevent minors from pornography. The ALA claimed against it because they claimed it violated their First Amendment. Three judges ruled unanimously that CPIA violated the First Amendment. The question being decided was "Does Congress have the authority to require libraries to censor internet content in order to receive federal funding?" They decided that it didn't violate the First Amendment. Its significance was to see if the government could regulate public libraries' media.
Camille Trusclair 7th
1. Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
ReplyDelete2. A. Gary Duncan was a black teenager accused of assaulting another white minor by slapping him on the elbow. B. Gary was fined $150 and given 60 days in prison. C. Gary was given no trial by jury.
3. Was the state of Lousiana required by the 6th Amendment to give Duncan a trial by Jury?
4. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Duncan's favor.
5. The ruling established that the trial by Jury for serious offenses not only applied to the states, it clarified that a serious offense is anything that can carry up to a two year prison sentence.
Jahrid Clyne 6th
1. United States vs Causby (1946)
ReplyDelete2. The Court found a taking when low-flying jets at an airbase made farming impossible on nearby land even though the government never actually claimed the land itself.
3. Whether or not the jets should be restricted in the airbase.
4. "a landowner's domain includes the lower altitude airspace, but that property does not extend"
5. Showed property lines for farmers and that they do not own the air above them
Kenneth Easo
7th Period
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2008)
ReplyDelete1.In Rhode Island development is greatly limited on salt marshes.
2.Palazzo owned waterfront property.
3.Palazzos's property was taken
3. May a property owner who acquired title to the property after is was subject to wetlands regulations still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment?
4. Palazzo won the ruling 5-4
5. The State cannot put an expiration on the takings clause of the constitution
Alisha Zute 6th
1)Malloy v. Hogan 1969
ReplyDelete2)William Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959 by Hartford, Connecticut police. After pleading guilty to pool selling, a misdemeanor, he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, but the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. Some 16 months following his plea, a Superior Court appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County. When Malloy refused, "on grounds it may tend to incriminate [him]" he was imprisoned for contempt and held until willing to answer questions.
3)Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee again self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding? The 14th amendment says that No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
4) In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promised or improper influence.
5)the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secures defendants against self-incrimination and compels state and federal officials to establish guilt by evidence that is free and independent of a suspect's or witnesses' statements.
Amilcar Rivas
6th period
1. Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
ReplyDelete2. 187 black high school and college students peacefully assembled to march to the South Carolina State House ground to petition their grievances with the state.
Later they were told by police officers that if they did not vacate the area, that they would be arrested.
They did not leave. Instead, they began to sing religious and patriotic songs.
They were arrested and charged with the crime of breaching the peace.
3.Did the arrests and convictions of the marchers violate their freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of their grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
4. The court decided that The court ruled in favor of Edwards by a vote of 8 to 1.
5. The case was tried during the time was of the Civil Rights Movement. The decision opened up doors for many other cases regarding segregation and courts began to protect the right of speech infringed by racism.
Tobi Ogunmodede
6th Period