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?
Name and Date of Case: Robinson v. California. Argued on April 17, 1962 and decided on June 25, 1962.
ReplyDelete3 facts to give background of case: Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law which required a sentence of at least 90 days in jail, a California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics”, and a state appellate court affirmed Robinson’s conviction on appeal.
Describe the question being decided by the Supreme Court: “Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighteenth Amendment?”
How did the Supreme Court decide?: In a 6-to-2 decision, 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. The Court noted that the law was not aimed at the purchase, sale, or possession of illegal drugs.
What was the significance of the decision?: This was the first Supreme Court case that led to the decision in which the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts and conducts and struck down the California law that criminalized those addicted to narcotics.
-Anne Dang, 4th 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 represented an early example of national constitutional protection in the field of criminal justice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. New York Times Company vs. United States (1971)
ReplyDelete2. The Nixon Administration tried to stop the NYT and Washington Post from publishing confidential US government papers. These papers were about the Vietnam from the Pentagon and displayed the brutal and horrific activities and American history involved entirely throughout their interaction with the Vietnam War.Nixon and his team claimed the restriction and confidentiality was sound because of national security. This was decided with Washington Post vs. united States as well.
3. Is Nixon and his administrations attempt to block the circulation of these classified documents a violation of the First Amendment?
4.The Supreme Court massively supported the newspaper companies (6-3). The judges ruled that the restraint was unjustified and inhibited the rights of the First Amendment.
5. This case not only reemphasized the rights of the people through the First Amendment, but it also changed the interaction between newspapers and government. Previously, the newspapers tended to stray to the side of the government because they were more of a team. There wasn't really deep articles about exposing the government since really Teddy Roosevelt's days. The revelation of these documents led newspapers and the public to not trust everything the government said. The Watergate Scandal would be revealed through the media months later, and this all separated the media and government from their "alliance" or sense of duty to one another.
Lauren Chamberlin
Period 5
1. Loving v. Virginia (1967)
ReplyDelete2. In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, married Richard Loving, a white man in The district of Columbia. Upon returning to Virginia, the couple was charged with violating the anti-miscegenation statue which prohibited interracial marriage. The couple was found guilty and was sentenced to one year in jail.
3. The question being asked was if Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. The Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of Loving.
5. Loving v. Virginia was a key milestone in helping to end racial discrimination in the United States. The Supreme Court decided that people are free to marry or not marry any race they choose and the State has no right to decide who marries who based off of race. This decision was a key point in ending segregation and discrimination of other races during the 1960's and helped to allow for all people to have interracial marriage.
Rendon Reinarz
Period 5
1. Roe v. Wade (1973)
ReplyDelete2. Roe, a woman, sought to terminate her pregnancy through abortion. She was an unmarried Texan woman. At the time, in the state of Texas, it was illegal to end a pregnancy unless the woman's health was at risk.
3. Roe argued that it was her's, and every other woman's, constitutional right to end a pregnancy if the woman did not want to go through it. She believed that with abortion illegal, is violated a woman's guarantee to personal liberty and the right to privacy granted in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments.
4. The Supreme Court voted in favor of Roe
5. Because the Supreme Court voted against the current state law, it therefore invalidated each state's decision on the issue. It also increased the amount of pregnancies ended as well as helped the procedure to be done more safely for the woman having it done. A significant outcome, though, is the moral questions involved and the reoccurring arguments about the ethics of this decision.
Julianna Hastreiter
Period 5
1. Griswold v. Connecticut
ReplyDelete2. Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to couples about birth control. However, she and others were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
3. Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
4. In a 7-2 decision, they voted in favor of Griswold
5. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
Michelle Phan
Period 5
1. Batson v. Kentucky
ReplyDelete2. James Kirkland Batson accused for burglary and receipt of stolen goods. Batson challenged the removal of these jurors as violating his Sixth Amendment. The jury convicted petitioner on both counts.
3. Did the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude the four blacks from the jury violate Batson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws?
4. The Court found that the prosecutor's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
5. Much litigation will be required to spell out the contours of the Court's equal protection holding today, and the significant effect it will have on the conduct of criminal trials cannot be gainsaid.
Feba Abraham
Period 4
1. Everson vs Board of Education (1947)
ReplyDelete2. Believing that sending children to a religious school on a bus used by everyone is an indirect way of aiding religion. It was advocating to change New Jersey law. In a 5-4 vote the court ruled that the law was constitutional because other students also use the same mode of transportation.
3. Should New Jersey keep the law allowing transportation to students who go to religious affiliated schools?
4. They voted in favor to keep the law 5-4 because it isn't violating the constitution
5. This case also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state governments.
Sarah Sultan
Period 4
1. Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
ReplyDelete2. Cities cannot require owners of property to give up their property for public use. Not even in order to receive permits to develop land. In cases where the city’s demands had no connection with the development intended by the owner.
3. Should cities require property owners to give up parts of their land for public use in order to receive permits to develop that land?
4. The supreme court decided that cities cold not require that of owners.
5. The significance of the decision limited what cities could ask of property owners.
Ambareen Virani
Period 4
1. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
ReplyDelete2. Section 203 violates the First Amendment and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements. Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional in this case. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations.
3. Should the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional challenges to the “BCRA” when it upheld the requirements of the act as constitutional?
4. Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or accuse individual candidates in elections.
5. The Court held that free speech was necessary in a free society, and that speech is not less protected because the speaker comes from a corporation, labor union, or other organization. The Court decided requirements for political advertising sponsors, and kept in place a ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Pamela gheriafi
Period 4
1. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
ReplyDelete2. Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold want to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during-- political campaigns. The wanted a ban on "soft money". Limit advertising from unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations.
3.The question being asked was does a contribution to a political party that is not accounted for exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections from Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.
4. The Supreme Court decided that the money being used by the candidates was fine because it has not caused corruption. The court decided that this would only affect state elections in which federal candidates were involved. So the Supreme Court decided not to ban "soft money".
5. The significance of this decision is that "soft money" is a way to help support a candidate, and that this would not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.
Michael Chan
4th period
1. Sell v. United States (2003)
ReplyDelete2. Sell was initially found competent to stand trial for fraud and attempted murder even with a long history of mental illness.The Magistrate authorized forced administration of anti psychotic drugs. The District Court saw that medication was necessary for Sell to stand trial and determine his guilt or innocence.
3. May the Federal Government administer anti psychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill criminal defendant in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial for serious, but nonviolent, crimes?
4. A defendant cannot be forced to involuntarily take anti psychotic drugs only to make him competent to stand trial without the consideration of additional criteria.
5. This placed limitations on how a defendant is medically treated as it may interfere with the trial's fairness.
Jenina Bianty
Period 5th
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2008)
ReplyDelete1.In Rhode Island property development is greatly limited on salt marshes.
2.Palazzo owned waterfront property in Rhode Island.
3. Palazzos's property was taken by the state.
4. May a property owner who bought land rights to the property after it was subject to wetlands regulations still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment?
4. Palazzo won the ruling 5-4 in the Supreme Court.
5. This established that the State cannot put an expiration on the takings clause of the constitution.
Raoof Ali
Period 5
Case: Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
ReplyDeleteFacts: 1. a Nebraska judge restricted the press from publishing confessions regarding a highly publicized murder trial. 2. The judge issued this order to ensure a fair trial by jury 3. The press did not view this restraint as constitutional or fair
Question: Did the judge's order violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
How decision: unanimous vote by the court in favor of the Nebraska Press Association because although if the press were allowed to publish the information it would perpetuate intense pretrial bias, there is no way to stop the public from discussing the case or its facts as a whole
Why important: The Court decided that allowing the press to report events surrounding trials does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial
Radhika Daru
Period 5
MGM Studios vs Grokster (2005)
ReplyDelete1. MGM Studios is an American media company, involved primarily in the production and distribution of feature films and television programs.
2. A group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster and the other companies violated the Copyright Act by intentionally distributing software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works.
3. A group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster and the other companies violated the Copyright Act
4. Unanimous opinion. the Court held that companies that distributed software, and promoted that software to infringe copyrights, were liable for the resulting acts of infringement.
5. Limewire unavailable for download
1. 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.
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
ReplyDelete2. (A) Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18 year-old woman. (B) The police interrogated Miranda until he confessed both orally and in writing. (C) The Police did not inform Miranda of his constitutional rights to an attorney and to remain silent during his arrest and interrogation, which led to Miranda giving self-incriminating information.
3. The Supreme Court had to decide if due process was given to Miranda following his arrest and that the criminal prosecution by the State of Arizona was fair as outlined in the Constitution.
4. The Supreme Court decided that the State of Arizona could not use any of the evidence provided to prosecute Miranda because it came from an unconstitutional source.
5. This led to the initial case being thrown out and Miranda being retried in a constitutional process. Also, police reform began requiring the "Miranda Rights" to be read at all arrests--informing all those taken into custody by the United States police of the rights guaranteed to them in the constitution--such that an issue like this does not arise again.
Matthew Whaley
Period 4
1.Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
ReplyDelete2.Bill Taylor was indicted on kidnapping charges. The day before his trial, he filed a motion against the petit jury that was selected for his trial. He argued that women were systematically excluded, which denied him a right to trial by a jury of his peers. This was due to an article of the Louisiana Constitution that states that a woman could not be selected for jury service unless she had previously submitted a written declaration of her desire to serve.
3.Does an article of the Louisiana state constitution that limits female jury service violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury of his peers?
4.Yes. The article, while not actively disqualifying women from serving on the jury, systematically prevented many women from serving.
5.There should be a fair cross-section of the population for juries in federal courts.
Alexis Chan
Period 5
1. Name and date of Case: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)
ReplyDelete2. 3 facts to give background of case:
1.Before the Colorado Republican Party selected its 1986 senatorial candidate, its Federal Campaign Committee bought radio advertisements attacking the Democratic Party's likely candidate.
2.The "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which imposes dollar limits upon political party "expenditure[s] in connection with the general election campaign of a [congressional] candidate."
3.The Colorado Party defended itself by claiming that the FECA expenditure limitations violated the First Amendment
3. Describe the question being decided by the Supreme Court: 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. How did the Supreme Court decide?: FECA violates the First Amendment
5. What was the significance of the decision? Got rid of federal financing limits
Epstein Jacob
Period 4
1. Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
ReplyDelete2. The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education 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 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. it declared that the school libraries have the rights of free speech and press.
Jyotis Joy
period 5
Wesley Cherry
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1. Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
2. 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 from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) standard drug approval requirements as loong as it meets certian restrictions
A group of licensed pharmacies that specialize in compounding drugs sought to enjoin enforcement of the advertising and solicitation provisions of this act
They argued that the restictions violated their First Amendment's free speech rights
3. The Question was whether or not the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 violated the First Amendment.
4. The Supreme Court decided based on whether or not the restictions from the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act were effective in directly advancing the purpose of the Act, nameky to permit drug compounding while guaranteeing that compounding was not conducted on such a scale as to undermine the drug approval process.
5. The Court held that the restrictions from the Drug Administration Modernzation Act were not more extensive than necessary to serve such interests.
1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
ReplyDelete2. This case arose in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. A main issue concerning the case was the limitation of financial contributions/donations made to potential candidates, etc. In addition, it called for reports for any financial aid given above the set threshold.
3. Did such a limit on financial contributions to candidates violate the First Amendment freedom of speech clauses?
4. The Supreme Court ruled that individual financial help outside of the candidates personal/family resources did not violate the First Amendment.
5. This decision provided somewhat of a compromise and set conditions on how much could be contributed to candidates and by who.
Jackson Stanley
Period 5
1. Gonzales V. Carhart (2007)
ReplyDelete2.a. In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The controversial concept of partial-birth abortion is defined in the Act as any abortion in which the death of the fetus occurs when "the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
B. A federal District Court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional on both grounds. The government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
C. The Eighth Circuit disagreed and upheld the District Court, ruling that a health exception is required for all bans on abortion procedures when "substantial medical authority" supports the necessity of the procedure
3.Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother?
4. The Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.
5. The Court left open the possibility that an as-applied challenge could be brought against the Act if it were ever applied in a situation in which an intact D&E was necessary to preserve a woman's health. In other words, abortion depends on the situation and judgement cannot be applied to all cases
Jun Hin Loi
Period 4
1. Buckley V. American (1998)
ReplyDelete2. Colorado citizens make laws directly by balloting initiatives. The ACLF challenged their process of making laws. The supreme court granted to review three of the six original restrictions.
3. the question being asked is if the state of Colorado violate the first amendment's freedom of speech by directly balloting.
4. The supreme court made its conclusion by 6 to 3 decision. The court found the name, badge, and disclosure requirements to be unconstitutional.
5. the significance of the decision was that the state Colorado needs to protect the integrity of the initative process.
Ayana Mathew
4th 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 ruled that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
5. The significance is that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
Josie Henry
4th period
1. Kent v. Dulles (1958)
ReplyDelete2. Rockwell Kent applied for and was refused a passport to visit England. In addition to informing him that his application refusal rested on his Communist Party affiliations, the Passport Office Director told Kent that in order for a passport to be issued a hearing would be necessary.
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. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens.
5. The significance of this case is that the government decided that no citizen should be denied the right to travel.Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.
Janice Wilson
Period 5
1. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
ReplyDelete2.This case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan.The Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.
3.Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
4.The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).
5.The significance is that the First Amendment now protects the publication of all statements about the conduct of public officials, unless they are made with actual malice.
David Lowery
Period 4
1. Raich v. Gonzalez, 2005
ReplyDelete2. In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana, making it an illegal substance. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
3. Did Congress have the right to regulate marijuana based on interstate commerce?
4. The supreme court decided against California, saying that Congress was allowed to regulate marijuana and therefore that their law was overruled.
5. This was significant because it allowed Congress to have more power in letting them spread their jurisdiction even further under the guise of interstate commerce.
Anna Mayzenberg 5th period
Delete1. 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 decided this based on how 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 significanca of this decision is beacuse the Fifth Amendment didn't mean literal public use but rather to interpret the phrase "public use" as loosely as possible
Jono Joseph
Period 5
1. Name and date of Case
ReplyDeleteWest Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
2. 3 facts to give background of case
1 - Three years prior in Minersville v. Gobitis the Court ruled in favor of the salute.
2 - WWII is going on so patriotism is prevalent in society.
3 - Due to the country being in wartime, subjects of patriotism (the flag, the pledge, etc) are very careful matters that could sway the entire country.
3. Describe the question being decided by the Supreme Court
Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment
4. How did the Supreme Court decide?
By voting 6-3 the Court decided compelling schoolchildren to salute the flag was a form of forcing them into unification, violating the First Amendment.
5. What was the significance of the decision?
No one person or organization can establish whats orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess their faith.
Kale Wicks
Period 4
Natalie Dye, Period 5
ReplyDelete1. Ingraham v. Wright (April 19, 1977)
2. Dade County Florida junior high school filed this action in a federal district court pursuant for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Florida statute then in effect authorized corporal punishment after the teacher had consulted with the principal or teacher in charge of the school. School Board allowed the paddling of petitioners on the buttocks exceptionally harsh.
3. Question: Is corporal punishment in schools prohibited under the 18th amendment?
4. The Supreme Court decided that the eighteenth amendment only applies to criminals/ those convicted of crimes.
5. This case was important because it emphasized the eighteenth amendment and only applicable to those convicted of crimes and not public schools.
1. Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010
ReplyDelete2. In 1961, Florida enacted the BSPA to restore and maintain critically eroded beaches within the state. In 2003, under the BSPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed for an Application for a Joint Coastal Permit and Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands in order to dredge sand from a shoal to rebuild a beach. SBR subsequently challenged the issuance of the permit and the constitutionality of the BSPA
3. By reversing longstanding holding that littoral rights are constitutionally protected, did the Florida Supreme Court cause a "judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
4. They concluded no. The supreme court held 8-0 that the Florida Supreme Court did not take property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
5. The significance is how it was in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Cassie De Leon
4th period
Hudson v Michigan (2006)
ReplyDelete1. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home
2. The police had a search warrant but did not follow the fourth amendment the Knock-and-announce"
3. The trial judge ruled the evidence could not be used but the Michigan Courts of appeals reversed based on two Michigan Supreme Court cases that created exception due to the inevitability of the evidence being found.
Does the general rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment apply to the "knock-and-announce" rule?
Decided that the evidence need not be excluded when police violate the knock and announce rule
The significance is that Hudson went to jail for probably a long time and ruined his life :,(
Sophie Wedgeworth
Period 5
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.
Joel Thomas Period 5
1.Garrison v. Louisiana (1964)
ReplyDelete2.District Attorney in Louisiana, during a dispute with certain state court judges of his parish, accused them at a press conference of laziness and inefficiency and of hampering his efforts to enforce the vice laws. A state court convicted him of violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute. The Constitution limits state power to impose sanctions for criticism of the official conduct of public officials, in criminal cases as in civil cases, to false statements concerning official conduct made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.
3. If the statute impermissibly infringed on his First Amendment rights
4.The Court held that a criminal libel statute should conform to the same restrictions as civil libel statutes to protect the freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
5. Led to the expansion of freedom of speech to civil statues
Period-4
UPDATE:
ReplyDelete1.Garrison v. Louisiana (1964)
2.District Attorney in Louisiana, during a dispute with certain state court judges of his parish, accused them at a press conference of laziness and inefficiency and of hampering his efforts to enforce the vice laws. A state court convicted him of violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute. The Constitution limits state power to impose sanctions for criticism of the official conduct of public officials, in criminal cases as in civil cases, to false statements concerning official conduct made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.
3. If the statute impermissibly infringed on his First Amendment rights
4.The Court held that a criminal libel statute should conform to the same restrictions as civil libel statutes to protect the freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
5. Led to the expansion of freedom of speech to civil statues
Period-4
Boy Scouts of America v Dale ( June 28,2000)
ReplyDelete1. The case reversed the New Jersey Court ruling that the BSA should not be able to kick out scoutmaster Dale for his sexual orientation
2. The New Jersey Court ruled that Dale should not be kicked out as this would not violate the BSA's 1st amendment and having Dale in the BSA would not affect its members severely in their purpose.
3. While the BSA that homosexuality went against the values they hoped to instill into young boys, neither their oath or law mentions homosexuality.
Can a private organization remove someone based on their sexual orientation?
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the BSA's favor and allowed them to remove Dale because his morals would interfere with their public viewpoints.
This ruling is significant because it allows a private orientation to exclude members on the discriminatory trait of sexual orientation.
Bryan Ta
4th Period
Lawrence v. Texas
ReplyDelete1.) Oral argument March 26, 2003. Decisions made June 26, 2003.
2.)-Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment.
-They saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act.
-Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
3.)Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
4.) No, yes, and yes.
Dominic Kochen
5th 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.
Lauryn Weller
4th period
1. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (Argued March 29, 2001 and Decided on June 19, 2001
ReplyDelete2. Took place in Santa Fe, Texas. The case was filed anonymously so as to protect the identity of those against the school district. Both the school district and the Does were not satisfied with the initial ruling by the district court and it eventually went to the Supreme Court.
3. The court was to determine whether or not it was constitutional for prayers to be led before football games while it was constitutional at graduation. it came down to who was giving the speech(prayer) on what property representing what group of people and to what group of people. To determine if the school policy was constitutional or not.
4. The Court held that the policy allowing the student-led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. 6-3 decision was the result.
5. The significance of the decision was that it set a standard for other similar school districts which still held strong ties to their religious beliefs which did not necessarily apply to all students enrolled.
Robert Slaybaugh
4th period
1. Stenberg v. Carhart (1999)
ReplyDelete2. A Nebraska law prohibited any "partial birth abortion" unless that procedure was necessary to save the mother's life. It defined "partial birth abortion" as a procedure in which the doctor "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the... child". Violation of the law is a felony, and it provides for the automatic revocation of a convicted doctor's state license to practice medicine.
3. Does the Nebraska statute, which makes the performance of a "partial birth abortions" a crime, violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution?
4. In a complicated 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that "Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion[s]" violates the U.S. Constitution.
5. It was significant because the sharply divided Court struck down the statute because it placed an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion and did not allow for exception in cases of threatened health.
Cameron Walker
Period 4
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.
Sainath Krishnamurthy
Period 4
1. United States v. Lopez (1995)
ReplyDelete2. Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
3. Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
4. They voted in favor to keep the law 5-4, because the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
5. Its significance was that it concluded the law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
Kriti Bansal
Period 5
Luke Matthews - Period 5
ReplyDelete1. Virginia v. Black (2003)
2. 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.
Owasso ISD vs Falvo, Nov 27, 2001
ReplyDelete1. Against Peer grading
2. Embarrasses the children
3. Argued that grades are confidential
Does the practice of peer grading violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974?
They unanimously ruled NO
It defined what educational records are
Yash Parmar 5th
1- Washington V. Glucksberg (1997)
ReplyDelete2- Previously the state of Washington had a ban against physician assisted suicide, the "Compassion in Dying" group believed that physician assisted suicide was a liberty issued, and that it should not be denied due to the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Though eighteen years before the state of washington was challenged the Natural Death Act of 1979 was passed which basically stated that any assisted suicide is unlawful and is considered assisting in a self murder.
3- The question being decided is do terminally ill patients have the liberty to decide physician assisted suicide and is the Washington ban and the Natural Death Act violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.
4- They voted that the Washington ban did not violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment, due to the preservation of human life and medical ethics.
5- It's significance was that assisted suicide does not fall under the due proper clause of the 14th amendment and is therfor illegal.
1.Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v.Virginia Citzens Consumers Council (1967)
ReplyDelete2a.Consumer Council was a organization of Virginia residents prescription drugs.
2b.Stats suggested that the drugs varied dramatically in price depending on the store.
2c.Consumer Council brought an action challenge a Virginia law that prohibited licensed pharmacists from advertising the prices of prescription drugs.
3. Does the Virginia law prohibited licensed pharmacists from advertising the prices of prescription drugs violate the 1st amendment rights?
4.The case presented with a problematic standing issue because the law that was challenged a group of asserting right of third party.
5.Regulations of commercial speech usually receive a lesser degree of scrutiny.
Erin Randle
Period 5
1. Abrams v. United States (1919)
ReplyDelete2. The defendants of the case were convicted based on two leaflets they had printed.
They threw these leaflets from the windows of a building in New York City. One of the leaflets opposed 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 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.
Abin Manuel
5th Period
Elizabeth Stech
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1) Terry v. Ohio (1968)
2) Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.
3) Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
4) In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.
5) The significance of this case is that it confirmed that a police officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.
1) Linmark Associates Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, march 2, 1977
ReplyDelete2) It took place in a recently integrated community.
It stopped only one form of communication leaving other channels open.
Banned signs only for any cause not just this specific one.
3) Is the banning of putting up signs a violation of the first amendment?
4) Reserved
5) the decision left it as a public matter as it was not a legal issue and it was in the rights to ban signs.
Mitchell Arwine period 4
1) South Dakota vs Dole (1987)
ReplyDelete2) -Since people 19 and over could purchase beer in South Dakota, so the Department of Transportation would keep 5% of State funds for South Dakota.
-The argument was whether congress had the power to withhold funds for a state as a consequence
- The justices voted 7-2 that it was constitutional for Congress to have that ability.
3. Can Congress withhold funds from states that dont have a 21 year old drinking age?
4) The supreme Court decided 7 to 2 that it was constitutional for congress to do this, as it didn't infringe upon the rights of the state. Also, this followed the five point rules established for expenditure cuts of the sort.
5) This ruling was significant because the Supreme Court considered the limitations the Constitution places on the authority of Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of power reserved for the states.
Alwyn Joseph 5th period
5th period
ReplyDelete1. Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
2. 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.
1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
ReplyDelete2. -The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by children under 14
- Reuben Dagenhart's father had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill
- Children between 14 and 16 often times worked up to 60 hours per week.
3. Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?
4. The justices voted 5-4 that the Keating-Owen Act was not reserved through the Commerce Clause and that production regulation was reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment.
5. The ruling was significant because it limited Congress' ability to regulate commerce because as the court ruled, production was not commerce, and it granted more power to the states through the tenth amendment.
Alan Cummins
4th Period
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.
Jubin Joseph Period 5
1.) United States V. United Food Inc. (2001)
ReplyDelete2.) -The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act mandates that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales.
-United Foods, Inc. refused to pay the assessment, claiming that it violated the First Amendment
-In granting the Government summary judgement, the court relied on Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., which held that the First Amendment was not violated when agricultural marketing orders
3.) Do mandatory advertising assessments imposed on mushroom producers and handlers under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act violate the First Amendment?
4.) Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the assessment requirement violates the First Amendment. They decided it by seniority.
5.) The mandated support is contrary to the First Amendment principles set forth in cases involving expression by groups which include persons who object to the speech, but who, nevertheless, must remain members of the group by law or necessity.
-Zoheb Khawaja 5th Period
1. McDonald V. City of Chicago (2010)
ReplyDelete2. -Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.
- In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.
- There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable.
3. Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
4. 5–4 decision for Otis McDonald, Majority opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.
5.The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states
Isabel Zhou period 4
1. Nollan Vs.California Coastal Commission
ReplyDelete2.
-The California Coastal Commission required owners of beachfront property wishing to obtain a building permit to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public.
- A concrete seawall separates the beach portion of the Nollans’ property from the rest of the lot.
- In 1982, the Nollans submitted a permit application to the Commission, which proposed to demolish their bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom home, which was in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The Commission granted the application, but placed a condition on the approval, which was that the Nollans were required to grant to the public an easement across their property, which would make it easier for people to get to the public beaches.
3. Did the requirement constitute a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
4.The Court agreed that a legitimate interest may be served by maintaining a "continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast."
5. After, it was reasoned by Justice Scalia that if California wished to use its power of eminent domain to do so, it must provide just compensation to the Nollans and other beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.
Naomi Samuel
Period 5
1. United States v. Morrison
ReplyDelete2. a. Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her.
b. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension; however, Crawford was not punished. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive."
c. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
3. Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment?
4. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court ruled against the United States Congress.
5. The Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state.
Tanmay Shah
Period 4
1.Smith v Doe
ReplyDelete2.
-Under the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, any sex offender or child kidnapper incarcerated in Alaska must register with the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a central registry of sex offenders.
- While some of the data is kept confidential, some, such as the offender's name, photograph, and physical description, is published on the Internet. The Act's requirements are retroactive.
- John Doe I and John Doe II were convicted of aggravated sex offenses before the Act's passage are thus covered by it. Both brought suit, seeking to declare the Act void as applied to them under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
3. Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's registration requirement as a retroactive punishment?
4.In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the act is nonpunitive.
5. The act could only cover the people who were convicted of criminal activities after the effective date of the criminal act without violating the ex post facto clause. - John Paul Stevens
Mohammad Ejaz
4th
1. Nix v. Williams (1984)
ReplyDelete2.
-Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. His Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest when he led the investigators to the body without an attorney present accidentally.
- 7 - 2 in against nix stating that the body would have been found anyways due to the extensive search teams
- This case did last several months to conclude with many diverted decisions and split votes until eventually reaching the supreme court
3. The Court found that if police learn of evidence by unconstitutional means, they may still introduce it at trial if they can prove that they would have found the evidence anyway through constitutional means. There is an “inevitable discovery” exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
4. o. The Court 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. This helps police to complete cases which use unconstitutionally obtained evidence unless this directly against a law or harming a person.
Bryce Del'Homme
Period 5
Stephen Kelly
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Benton vs Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319
Background: Petitioner was tried in a Maryland state court for burglary and larceny. He was acquitted of larceny, but convicted of burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Because the grand and petit juries in petitioner's case had been selected under an invalid constitutional provision, the case was remanded to the trial court and petitioner was given, and exercised, the option of demanding reindictment and retrial. Reindicted for larceny and burglary, petitioner filed, on the ground of double jeopardy, a motion to dismiss the larceny count, which the trial court denied. On retrial, he was found guilty of both offenses, and concurrently sentenced to 15 years for burglary and 5 years for larceny. The appellate court ruled against petitioner on the double jeopardy issue and affirmed
1. The concurrent sentence doctrine enunciated in Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 105, does not constitute a jurisdictional bar to this Court's deciding petitioner's challenge to his larceny conviction, since the possibilities of adverse collateral effects to him from that conviction give the case an adversary cast and make it justiciable. Pp. 787-791.
2. Regardless of whether the concurrent sentence doctrine survives as a rule of judicial convenience, the doctrine is inapplicable here, since the Maryland appellate court decided not to apply the doctrine, and upheld the larceny conviction despite petitioner's double jeopardy contention, and since the status of petitioner's burglary conviction is still in some doubt. Pp. 791-793.
3. The double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, overruled. Pp. 793-796.
4. Petitioner's larceny conviction cannot stand
The Decision was 6-2
1. Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)
ReplyDelete2. Many patients used cocaine while receiving their prenatal care. Therefore, the medical university of south California (MUSC) implemented a policy to prosecute patients receiving prenatal care whose children tested positive for drugs at birth. Patients filed suit challenging the policy's accuracy on the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches.
3. The question being decided by the supreme court is that whether state hospitals violate the fourth amendment which is Prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures by conducting diagnostic test without their consent.
4. The supreme court concluded this case by stating if the patient does not consent to diagnostics tests then it is an unreasonable search.
5. The court ruled that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional. Searches can be only conducted under special needs divorced from the generalized interest in law enforcement.
Shweta Mathews
4th period
1.Thompson vs Western States Medical Center 2002
ReplyDelete2 The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) doesn't allow "compounded drugs," which are drugs a pharmacist combined or altered with.
b) a group of pharmacist violated the first amendment.
c)Court of Appeals concluded that the Government had not demonstrated that the restrictions would directly advance its interests or that alternatives less restrictive of speech were
3.did the prohibitions in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 break the first amendment?
4. the Supreme Court conclusions was yes, it broke the first amendment.
5the Court held that the FDAMA's provisions amounted to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech
1. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
ReplyDelete2. Dollree Mapp was convicted of having obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive She appealed her conviction using the basis of freedom of expression.
3. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
4. The court made the decision that all of the evidence gathered by search and seizure in violation of the Constitution is prohibited in a state court, according to the Fourth Amendment.
5. Dollree Mapp was convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.
Tom Jospeh
Period 4
Name/ date: Greenlaw v United States (2010)
ReplyDelete3 facts: Michael Greenlaw was convicted of several drug and firearm defenses. The district judge felt that the mandatory minimum should not apply since the second offense (other of the two courts) was not the result of a separate incident. The appeal court sent the case back to the district court to be charged with the minimum.
Question being decided: Do federal appellate courts have the authority to hike a criminal defendant's sentence in the absence of a government request to do so?
Decisions: no, not unless the appellee brings a cross appeal.
Significance: reaffirmed that govt has to follow previously stated rules and that they cannot increase the case sentence without a govt request.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rohitab.com/discuss/user/70022-master001/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.postforum.com/users.php?mode=profile&uid=163999
https://forums.pocketgems.com/member.php?380692-jakedawson009
http://forum.aunbox.com/member.php?2474-nick001
http://www.railay.com/railay/news/viewtopic.php?t=40350
http://kevron2001.forumchitchat.com/profile/5851170
http://www.jcacaniquel.com/index.php?task=profile&id=613763
http://motorradfreunde-muenchweilerev.de/Forum/member.php?action=profile&uid=214466
http://www.manozaidimai.lt/profile/lykan001
http://social.joyetech.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=226652