Table of Contents. Page 1

Table of Contents Teams Topic Page Team 1 Powers of the Federal Government 2-6 Leader Casey Eisinger Section Introduction and Summary 2 Jake Burcaw Marbury V. Madison 3 Angelica Henry Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 4 Alissa Notine Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 5 Matthew Ingram McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819 6 Team 2 Equal Protection Under the Law 7-13 Leader Lauren Perkins Section Introduction and Summary 7 Stephen Livingston Korematsu v. US, 1944 8 Youlmy Sorto Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964 9 Anna LaVenture Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 10 Sydney Sutcliffe Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 1978 11 Tony Silverest Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 12 Brett Saunders Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 13 Team 3 The First Amendment 14-20 Leader Vernon Espinoza Section Introduction and Summary 14 Sam Bonney Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 15 David Griffin Texas v. Johnson, 1989 16 Philip Bachman Engel v. Vitale, 1962 17 Tyler Thomas Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 18 Arden Cashion Texas Vs Johnson, 1989 19 Keisha Ijames Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 20 Team 4 Rights of the Accussed 21-24 Leader Thomas Fisher Section Introduction and Summary 21 Nathan Holtsclaw Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 22 Victoria Washington Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 23 Amanda Moore Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 24 Team 5 Rights of the Accussed 25-28 Leader Jessica Ward Section Introduction and Summary 25 Olivia Norman Furman v. Georgia, 1967 26 Nicholas Hussey Gregg v. Georgia 1976 27 Ikemba Megwara New Jersey v T.L.O, 1985 28 Team 6 Rights of the Accused 29-32 Leader Comlan Wesseh Section Introduction and Summary 29 David Sullivan Furman vs. Georgia 30 Matthew Webb Gregg.v Georgia, 1973 31 Riley Mcpherson New Jersey V. T.L.O, 1985 32 App. Appendix Supplementary Materials 33-40 Appendix 1 Vocabulary 34-37 Appendix 2 Check and Balances Chart 38 Appendix 3 Landmark Supreme Court Cases 39-40 Page 1

Federal Court Cases By: Casey Eisinger Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison is the case that created the procedure of Judicial Review. Judicial review is when the judicial branch checks everything that the executive and legislative branches pass. This process was made because John Adams wrote commissions for certain Federalists to take power when he was voted out of office. William Marbury was supposed to receive one of these commissions, but when he didn t sued James Madison for not delivering it. Marbury argued that it was against the Judiciary Act of 1789, while Madison said that Jefferson wanted the appointments on those papers cancelled. The court decided that Marbury had the right to take on his new job, but Madison could not be forced to deliver them. It was also decided that if an act or law goes against the Constitution, or any other laws, it must go through the judiciary act first, and so came to be judiciary review. Gibbons v. Ogden The Gibbons v. Ogden case deals with interstate commerce and the idea of Federal over state power. Gibbons and Ogden were both steam boaters that ferried people from one place to another. One of Gibbons and Ogden s paths crossed each other, when Ogden noticed this he sued Gibbons for not having a state license. Ogden said that you need a state license to be able to ferry people, while Gibbons said a Federal license was better. Ogden won at first, but in the end Gibbons won because Federal always overrides state power. McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch v. Maryland is the case that brought about National Supremacy. National supremacy states that states cannot interfere with operations that the Federal government controls. James McCulloch was the president of the second national bank; Maryland had decided to build another bank in Pennsylvania. Maryland tried to tax the bank but McCulloch refused to pay the taxes. When he continued to do this he was sued by the state of Maryland. As it turns out, the Court s decision was that Maryland could not tax the bank without going against the Constitution because the national bank was created by the Congress. So they ruled that Maryland could not tax the bank without going against the national supremacy clause. Page 2

Marbury V. Madison By Jake Burcaw Background Information When John Adams term as president expired in 1801, on his last night in office he signed forty-two commissions for new Justices of Peace in District of Columbia. A majority of people he commissioned were Federalists, so even though John Adams was out of office the Federalists still had power. Adams was able to do this because congress had passed Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave Adams the power to appoint new Justices of Peace. All but four of the original commissions were delivered that night by James Madison. When Thomas Jefferson took office the next day he put a halt on the last four letters being delivered. William Marbury was one of the four who was suppose to receive a letter, but never did. Marbury filed a Judiciary Act against James Madison who was supposed to deliver his letter. Marbury claimed that he should have been appointed a Justice of Peace in Congress as John Adams said. Constitutional Issues- Judiciary Act of 1789 Marbury claimed that his rights under the Judiciary Act of 1789 were violated. Even though Thomas Jefferson was now president, Marbury still had his right to be a Justice of Peace. This case set the precedent for Judicial Review. This case also established Judicial Review. Court Decision The Supreme Court s decision was a unanimous 4-0 in favor of Marbury. The court said Marbury s Judiciary Rights were violated and established Judicial Review. The court ruled that even Marybury s appointment had been ruled as unconstitutional even though he had won the case. Previous Decision A previous decision had been clarified. This case had given the Supreme Court the Highest Power in the U. S. The Supreme Court had the power to declare when something is ruled as unconstitutional. Concurring Opinion/ Dissenting Opinion There was not a concurring opinion or dissenting opinion in this case. Conflict The Supreme Court attempted to resolve when something is declared as unconstitutional. The court tried to resolve this conflict by establishing Judicial Review. Sources Marbury v Madison. Globster.com.n.d. web. 16 Apr. 2013. Marbury v. Madison (1803). Pearson Education Inc. 2005. Infoplease. web. 14 Apr. 2013. Marbury v Madison. Civics Today. Glenco. 260. print. 14 Apr. 2013. Page 3

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 By: Angelica Henry Background Information: Gibbons v. Ogden was a Supreme Court case regarding two steam-boaters, Aaron Ogden & Thomas Gibbons. Aaron Ogden, resident of New York, had a valid steam-boater s license under New York law. Thomas Gibbons, had a steam-boaters license issued to him by the Federal Government; and this license was not recognized by the state of New York. Ogden sued Gibbons for preventing him from running his ferry business, and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. This governmental battle between these two water travelers aroused the question, Which government (New York v. Federal) has the right to regulate inter-state commerce? It was ruled that Federal overrules state; and in the end, Gibbons won the case over inter-state commerce. Constitutional Issues: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 The constitutional issues in the court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, involve Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 from The Constitution. Gibbons v. Ogden was a court case that represented how much Federal Power can overrule (the precedent). In other words, when both Gibbons and Ogden were being retried, (after Ogden had won the first trial), Gibbons, whom is representing federal power, won the retrial. Supreme Court s Decision: 6 to 0 in Gibbon s favor The Supreme Court ruled this way because of The Commerce Clause. The Court all came to the decision that, Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more; it is intercourse. (Johnson, 2) The Court s decision, in Gibbons favor, was ruled due to the fact that Gibbons was issued a Federal license. Ogden had been issued a State license to boat. The Supreme Court ruled the Federal license above the State license. The previous decision of Ogden winning the case (state power) was overruled. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: There was no dissenting opinion for this case. The concurring opinion is as follows: The grant to Livingston and Fulton interferes with the freedom of intercourse, and on this principles, its constitutionality is contested. (Johnson, 1) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Infoplease. Pearson Prentice Hall, n.d. Web 11 April 2013. http://www.infoplease.com/us/supremecourt/cases/ar12.html. GIBBONS v. OGDEN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 April 2013. Johnson, J. Gibbons v. Ogden. Legal Information Institute. N.p.. Web. 16 April 2013 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/ussc_cr_0022_0001_zc.html. Page 4

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 By Alissa Notine Background Information: A New York state law gave Robert Fulton and his partner the exclusive right to operate steamboats along New York s waterway. This made steamboats from out-of-state pay extra to use New York waterways. Aaron Ogden was given a monopoly by Fulton, for ferryboat travel between New York and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons had a federal license and could run his boats anywhere between New Jersey and New York. Ogden wanted to shut down Gibbons for not following the New York law. Constitutional Issues: The Constitutional issues for this case would be Federal Power and the regulation of interstate commerce. Court Decision: The court decision was 6-0 in Gibbons favor. The Supreme Court ruled in this fashion due to the fact that Federal power over ruled state powers. They ruled because Gibbons had a Federal license, meaning he could go where he needed, while Ogden had a state license, meaning he had to abide by the state laws. By having a Federal license, Gibbons did not have to follow the New York state law. The decision the court ruled set the precedent that the right to regulate commerce between the states belong to the Federal Government and that Federal laws suspend State laws. Concurring Decision: Thomas Gibbons The concurring opinion was that: The grant to Livingston and Fulton interferes with the freedom of intercourse, and on this principles, its constitutionality is contested. (Johnson, 1) Dissenting Opinion: There was no dissenting opinion due to the fact that the vote was 6-0 in Gibbons favor. Photo of Thomas Gibbons <http://landmarkcases.pbworks.com/w/page/14738304/gibbons%20v%20ogden> Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., Richard Clay Hanes, and Rebecca Valentine. Ed. Lawrence W. Baker. 2nd ed. Vol. 5: Business and Government Law. Detroit: U*X*L, 2011. 1097-1103. Student Resources In Context. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. Gibbons v. Ogden Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. Johnson, J. Gibbons v. Ogden. Legal Information Institute. N.p.. Web. 12 April 2013 Page 5

McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819 By: Matthew Ingram Background Information: The nations first ever secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton came up with an idea to establish a national bank. To do this he had to urge the congress greatly. Congress agreed with him and decided to create a national bank in 1791. The bank for a while was helpful in many ways like building schools, libraries, or even roads. The bank lasted for 20 years ending in 1811. However, a new bank was chartered in 1816. It also was good for the economy, citizens were able to deposit and withdraw and the bank was providing money to build many things. There was one problem with having a national bank, it hurt the state banks. Due to the competition state banks were finding ways to weaken the national bank. Many states including Maryland taxed the national bank operating in their boundaries in attempt to weaken the national bank. A guy by the name of James McCulloch who was the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the national bank refused to pay the states large tax of $15,000. This caused Maryland to sue him, in the state court the state ruled in favor of Maryland. However, McCulloch appealed this to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issue: Article I, Section 8 This is the National Bank in Baltimore This dealt with the first clause in which says that the congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common difference and the general welfare of the United States. Nowhere in this does it say that the states can tax the congress or national government. This is what the issue was, by the state of Maryland taxing the Baltimore branch it could also be said that they were trying to harm or destroy. Supreme Court s Decision: 7 to 0 in McCulloch s favor The court ruled in a unanimous decision that McCulloch was right. They ruled with McCulloch because if you want to establish a nation bank it s a Federal function. Because it s a Federal function it allows congress to be able to regulate trade, collect taxes, and if needed they can borrow money. For these reasons, the Supreme Court agreed with McCulloch. The precedent in this case was the principal of national supremacy was formed. In national supremacy it forbids the state from intruding into the constitutional operations of the national government. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: There wasn t a concurring or dissenting opinion in my case because there was a unanimous vote and there was no body that agree with McCulloch for a different reason. MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND. The Oyez project at llt Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 April 2013. www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819_0 Remy, Patrick, Saffell, Clayton,. Civics Today. North Carolina. McGraw Hill, Glencoe, 650. http://enlearn.eastnoble.net/abell1/images1/bank%20of%20u.s.%20mcculloch%20v.%20maryland.jpg Page 6

Court Cases Summary By: Lauren Perkins Korematsu v US, 1944 After Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps, but one man named Korematsu refused to leave his home. He argued that Executive Order 9066 went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th amendment. Korematus lost in court because the US government is allowed to limit one s rights in time of war. Heart of Atlanta Motel v US, 1964 A group of African American men were denied accommodations by the owners of the Heart of Atlanta Motel. The owners of the motel believed that Congress doesn t have the power to regulate discriminatory practices because the motel was a local private business. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Congress does have the power to regulate discriminatory practice in hotels, motels, etc. because they welcome guests between two states, and are therefore a part of interstate commerce. Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 James Swann believed that schools were not doing a good job at becoming desegregated. He argued that the 14 th amendment was being violated because African Americans were not equally protected under the law. He created a busing plan that guaranteed at least 29% of students at each school would be black. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Swann s busing plan. Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 1978 Bakke was an African American who applied twice to the University of California Medical School. Bakke was rejected both times he applied, and felt that he was being discriminated because of his race. The University of California practiced affirmation action party, which is what made his applications get rejected. The Supreme Court voted in favor of Bakke, and decided that race cannot be the only factor in determining admissions. Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 A law was passed in Louisiana that forced African Americans to ride in separate railroad cars than whites. An African American named Homer Plessy boarded an all white car to protest this law, and got arrested for it. Plessy and his lawyer believed that Plessy s 13 th and 14 th amendments were being violated because he wasn t being treated equally. The Supreme Court decided that Plessy was not denied any of his rights because the colored cars were equal to the white cars. Brown v Board of Education, 1954 An eight year old African American girl, Linda Brown, was not accepted to an all white school near her house. She was instead registered to a colored school twenty-one blocks away from her home. The Brown family argued that her 14 th amendment rights were being taken away because she was being discriminated. The Supreme Court unanimously voted in Brown s favor, and declared Separate but Equal unconstitutional. Page 7

Korematsu v. US, 1944 By: Stephen Livingston Background Information: Two months after the Pearl Harbor incident in December 1941, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, giving U.S. Military power to exclude Japanese Americans from areas critical to domestic security. These Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps. One of these Japanese citizens, Fred Korematsu, refused to leave his home in San Leandro, California. His case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1944. Issue: Japanese Internment Camps: 14 th amendment, Equal Protection Clause Korematsu thought that he could prove Executive Order 9066 was against the 14 th amendment by explaining the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th amendment. He argued that he wasn t equally protected because he was going to be sent to an internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court argued that the government can take away one s rights in time of war, which in this case was true. Supreme Court s Decision: 6 to 3 in US favor The US Army claimed Japanese Americans were held in internment camps because it was insinuated that Japanese Americans were ordering enemy ships, and were prone to disloyalty, and that security concerns were far more important than equal protection. The US government claimed that this was constitutional also because it was in time of war, which allowed them to limit people s rights. Concurring Opinion: There was no concurring opinion. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Robert Jackson dissented that the internment of the Japanese was wrong because it was based on insinuations directed toward these Japanese citizens. "Korematsu, Fred T." Asian American Reference Library. Ed. Helen Zia, et al. 2nd ed. Detroit: U*X*L, 2010. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "Fred Korematsu v. United States." Fred Korematsu v. United States. Korematsu Institute, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Konkoly, Toni. "Fred Korematsu." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 8

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964 By: Youlmy Sorto Background Information: Right off the interstate highway is the Heart of Atlanta Motel with 216 rooms. In 1964 a group of African American men walked in and were denied accommodations by the owners of the motel. Moreton Rolleston and Lester Maddox, the owners of the motel, sued for the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act section II. After losing in the federal courts they applied for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue: 14 th Amendment, Civil rights Act 1964 section II, Commerce Clause Section II of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. Motels deal with individuals traveling between states, so they are considered a part of interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Moreton Rolleston believed that Congress does not have the power to regulate discriminatory practices because he owned a local private business. Supreme Court s Decision: 9 to 0 in The United States favor The Supreme Court decided that the Commerce Clause did apply to this situation because the motel was on the edge of state lines. The motel welcomed guests between two states, which allowed the court to rule that public accommodations could not choose who was and wasn t given a room. The precedent was the that all public accommodations are available to everyone, and that business owner s can not deny them based on race, nationality, etc.. Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas believed that because this was a case regarding racism that it itself was a more important matter than the issue with the Commerce Clause, and it shouldn t be put in the same category. Dissenting Opinion: No judge voted against the majority, therefore there was no dissenting opinion. Civil Rights Division Home Page. Civil Rights Division Home Page. N.p., n. d. Web 17 Apr.2013 Heart of Atlanta Motel. Infoplease.Infoplease, n. d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.. The oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 Apr2013. Heart of Atlanta/Paickrick Trile. Heart of Atlanta/Pickrick Trial. N.p., n. d. Web. 17 Apr2013. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Heart of Atlanta Motel V United States.N.p., n. d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Page 9

Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 By: Anna LaVenture Background: A man named James Swann did not think that Brown vs. Board of Education s plan for integration was very effective. Schools remained mostly all-black or mostly all-white, even though they were told to desegregate. Swann wanted to create a new plan for the Charlotte- Mecklenburg school district. The court created a busing plan that guaranteed at least 29% of students at each school would be black, to ensure better integration. Issues: Segregation, 14 th Amendment, School Districts. An argument arose that the 14 th Amendment was being violated because African Americans were not equally protected under the law due to their race. The plan would also be very expensive in order to bus all students (almost half a million dollars would be spent), but once the school board appealed the plan to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they appealed it to the Supreme Court, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) agreed to help fund the plan. Supreme Court s Decision: 9 to 0 in Swann s favor The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Swann s plan (to use a busing strategy to integrate the schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County). Concurring opinion: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger s concurring opinion recognized that busing (although maybe not completely desirable) would possibly be one of the only ways to begin integrating schools. Dissenting opinion: There is no dissenting opinion. "Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)." Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., Richard Clay Hanes, and Rebecca Valentine. Ed. Lawrence W. Baker. 2nd ed. Vol. 4: Equal Protection and Civil Rights (Part 2). Detroit: U*X*L, 2011. 900-905. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "Busing to End Segregation Endorsed by Supreme Court, April 20, 1971."DISCovering U.S. History. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Liptak, Adam. "IDEAS & TRENDS; Brown v. Board of Education, Second Round." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2006. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 10

Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 1978 By: Sydney Sutcliffe Background information: A thirty-five year old white man named Allan Bakke had applied twice to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was rejected both times he applied. The school reserved sixteen spots in each class that entered of the one hundred qualified minorities. Bakke argues that his qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded the other students in the two years he applied. Bakke s applications that he sent were rejected. Bakke went to California courts first, and then the Supreme Court found he was excluded solely of basis of race. Issues: Admissions, 14 th Amendment This trial talked about how the University of California went against the 14 th amendment, and Bakke s civil rights. The University of California practiced affirmation action party, which made his application get rejected. They weren t equally protected under the law in determining admissions. They can t discriminate against any race or person. The university wanted to promote a diverse community, but they didn t have one because they discriminate. Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 4 in Bakke s favor The court s decision agreed that Bakke was not admitted because of his race, which they went against. There was no single majority vote. The Supreme Court overturned a quota policy at admissions in University of California. They did not settle reverse discrimination; it was decided in narrow statutory grounds. There were two opposing votes and Justice Powell s concurring opinion. The Supreme Court s final decision was race cannot be the only factor in determining admissions. Concurring Opinion: The concurring opinion is that Justice Powell agreed, but he says that the University of California violated the equal protection clause of the 14 th amendment. Dissenting Opinion: The other four justices believed that the use of race as a factor in higher education admissions was constitutionally acceptable. Archives & Oral History. Archives & Oral History. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978). Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2013. Page 11

Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 By: Tony Silverest Background Information: Louisiana passed a law in 1890, which forced African Americans to ride in separate railroad cars from whites. Homer Plessy, a light-skinned African American, decided to protest this law by boarding an all white car. He was arrested, tried, and convicted for violating the state s laws regarding segregation by a local judge. Plessy then took his case to the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Separate but Equal, 14 th amendment When Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, African American s felt that they were being discriminated. The Separate Car Act made it essential that railroads provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races. Also, a person couldn t use a rail car that their race wasn t assigned. Plessy s attorney argued that the 13 th and 14 th amendments were being violated. The 13 th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14 th amendment gave all citizens equal protection under the law. Supreme Court s Decision: 7 to 1 in Ferguson s favor Plessy was not denied any of his rights because the colored cars were equal to the white cars. Since blacks and whites were treated equally, the 14 th amendment was not being violated. The 13 th amendment wasn t being violated either because the statute merely implies a legal distinction between the white and colored races. Plessy was ultimately found guilty for violating the 1890 law. The precedent Separate but Equal was established after this case. Concurring Opinion: Justice Brown distinguished that segregation does not in itself make up unlawful discrimination. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Harlan believed that under US Constitution all citizens are equal. He thought that the forced separation of races put down African Americans. Plessy v. Ferguson. UXL Encyclopedia of U.S. History. Sonia Benson, Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., and Rebecca Valentine. Vol. 6. Detroit: UXL, 2009. 1238-1239. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Plessy v. Ferguson. Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Ed. Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk. Detroit: Gale, 1999. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17. Apr. 2013. White Only Waiting Room. Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Ed. Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Page 12

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 By: Brett Saunders Background Information: An eight year old African American girl, Linda Brown, was not accepted to an elementary school only five blocks away from her home in Topeka, Kansas. School officials denied Linda at her nearby school; instead they registered her to a nonwhite elementary school about twenty-one blocks away from her home. The Board of Education of Topeka maintained and handled the white and nonwhite schools. The Brown family filed a lawsuit to force schools to accept her to her nearby school, which was an all white school. Issue(s): Segregation, 14 th Amendment This states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Plessy v. Ferguson established segregation with separate but equal. Little did they know that separate but equal was actually unconstitutional because not everyone was equally protected under the law. Linda Brown was discriminated by the Board of Education because she was denied to attend an all white school. Supreme Court s Decision: 9 to 0 in Brown s favor In 1952, Brown v. Board of Education reached the United States Supreme Court. After hearing different arguments, the court failed to reach an agreement. Attorney Thurgood Marshall presented the arguments on behalf of the black students. On May 17, 1954, the Court unanimously revealed that segregation in all public education deprived minority of children under the 14 th Amendment. Concurring Opinion: There was no Concurring opinion in this case. Dissenting Opinion: There was also no Dissenting opinion in this case. "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)." UXL Multicultural: A Comprehensive Resource on African Americans.. Detroit: U*X*L, 2003. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "Desegregation of Public Education." DISCovering. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "School Desegregation March." The African-American Experience. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 2010. American Journey. Student Resources In Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 13

Vernon Espinoza Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines U.S student wore armbands to their local school. The Principle of Des Moines High School made a dress code rule that suspended wearing these armbands to school. This violated the kids 1st Amendment Right of Freedom of Expression. The families filed a lawsuit against the school for violating of their civil rights. The Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 in Tinkers Favor. The Supreme Court clarified that schools cannot make kids take off the armbands unless it caused unnecessary disruption in the class. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in public to show his anger towards President Reagan s governmental choices. The state of Texas said that since Johnson was disrespecting the American Flag, a national symbol of our nation, and that he should go to jail. The Supreme Court said that the government does not have the power to limits the meanings of symbols because it violates your First Amendment Right of Freedom of Expression. Engel v. Vital, 1962 In 1962 parents of students in New Hyde Park schools complained to the Board of Education about how they did not want their kids to pray in school. The schools said that the students didn t have to stay in the classroom while the other students prayed but the parents were not satisfied. They took this case up to the Supreme Court and they decided that the government could not support an organized religion because of the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Religion. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 Students at Hazelwood East High School printed an article about private information in the school newspaper. The principle didn t let the students print the article. Angered Kuhlmeier said that her First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Press were being violated. The case was appealed and the Supreme Court took a look at the case. The Supreme Court stated that because the principle is in charge of the students then he has the power to limit their First Amendment Rights. He has the power to review all newspaper articles and decide if they are school appropriate. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 At a school assembly Matthew Fraser made a sexual trying to promote his friends school campaign to get elected. The speech caught the attention of many teachers and staff. Matthew Fraser was suspended from school for two days. Mathew was so enraged that he protests that his first amendment right of freedom of speech had been violated. The school districted appealed the case and the Supreme Court said that schools may prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Page 14

Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 Sam Bonney Background Information: In 1965 three U.S. students wore black armbands to school. Theses armbands were in protest of the Vietnam War and in support of the Christmas Truce. The school principals decided that they were going to make a rule in which students were not allowed to wear armbands. The students were suspended and told not to come back. Two of the students violated the rule and were suspended until January 1 st, 1966 which was when the protest ended. They were then approached by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union who offered to help the family with the lawsuit because it was violating their civil rights. Issues: Freedom of Expression; First Amendment The issue with this was that the principles said it should not be allowed because of the rules against armbands. The argument was that the rule was violating the student s first amendment rights of expression. The school said that they could make a policy that said otherwise. Supreme Court s Decision: 7 to 2 in Tinker s favor The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the teachers to make them take the armbands off. They clarified though that if it was disrupting the school environment teachers could ask the students to take them off. They said that it was like free speech and that is the reason that they ruled it the way they did. Concurring Opinion: White agreed because he thought that the rights of children should be very much like the rights of adults. He said, Forcing them to take them off wouldn t go along with their first amendment rights. Dissenting Opinion: Black disagreed because he said, Speech rights should be narrowly limited in the interest of good discipline in the school environment. "TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST." Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)." Mrspencerinfo. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 15

Texas v. Johnson, 1989 By, David Griffin Background information: Against President Reagan s policies Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag at Dallas City Hall in 1984. Johnson was charged a fine of 2000 dollars and, jail time of a year. The case went to the Supreme Court after it was reversed by Texas court of Appeals. Issue(s): The First Amendment s Freedom expression. Flag burning is legal even though it is very offensive to some people. The United States Government cannot punish in the court of law for expressing your opinion in public Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 4 in Johnsons favor. The court decided that it was a freedom of expression, even though it might be offensive to most Americans. The previous decision was overruled because The Supreme Court said that states do not have the right to assign symbols to be used to show only one meaning. Concurring Opinion: Justice Kennedy stated, The flag is poignant to those who hold it dear to their hearts but because of the first amendment s freedom of expression he must go free Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens stated, the flag is a value, a proud symbol if America. Even though our Nations flag is great in value, our First Amendment right is even greater. That is why flag burning is a disgrace to our nation. Google Images." Google Images. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013 "Texas v. Johnson (No. 88-155)." N.p., n.d. Web. Texas v. Johnson The Oyez project at IIT Chicago-Kent college of law, 13 April 2013. Page 16

Engel v. Vitale, 1962 By Philip Bachman Background information: In 1962 ten parents brought their case to the New Hyde Park Board of Education saying that they didn t want their kids to pray at the beginning of school. The school argued back saying there was official state of religion and it didn t break the establishment clause because students during prayer had the right to leave if they didn t want to pray. The case was brought to trial and the court ruled in favor of new Hyde s Park School District. The 10 parents then brought their case to the Supreme Court where they ruled in favor of Engel. Issues: First Amendment Clauses The Constitutional issue in this case was if it broke the first amendment s establishment clause by having students say a prayer at the beginning of each school day the prayer Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.. The prayer was argued in court that this was a state sponsored religion. Supreme Court decision: 6 to 1 vote in favor of Engel The Supreme Court ruled this way because they believed that religion was not the business of the government. The decision in the Supreme Court overruled the decision made in the first trial in the lower court. The precedent set was that having government sponsored religion and prayer is violating the establishment clause. Concurring Opinion: Justices Douglas said our Bill of Rights would not permit a State or the Federal Government to adopt an official prayer and penalize anyone who would not utter it. Dissenting opinion: Justice Potter Stewart said: I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. Court, U.S. Supreme. "Engel v. Vitale." Civil Rights in America. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. American Journey. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. "Engel v. Vitale (1962)." Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., Richard Clay Hanes, and Rebecca Valentine. Ed. Lawrence W. Baker. 2nd ed. Vol. 1: Individual Liberties. Detroit: U*X*L, 2011. 108-112. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Page 17

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 By: Tyler Thomas Background Information: Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students went to court against Hazelwood East High School because the principle didn t let the students put two articles about another student in the schools newspaper. The principle of the school Robert E. Reynolds said what the students wrote in the newspaper was inappropriate so he didn t let the students use the articles. The reason the schools principle didn t let the students use the articles because they tried publishing private information in the schools newspaper. Issue(s): First amendment rights, 1 st amendment The constitutional issues where that schools couldn t control your first amendment rights in school such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. The principles argument was that since they are students and he is in charge of the students during the school day that he could limit the students rights to not let them publish an inappropriate article in the schools newspaper. Cathy Kuhlmeiers argument was that schools shouldn t be able to limit your first amendment rights because the amendments are meant to apply to all people. Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 3 in Hazelwood School District favor. The reason Hazelwood school district had won is because schools need the power to enforce and limit the student from doing inappropriate and offensive things even if it means limiting the students first amendment rights. Concurring Opinion: None. Dissenting Opinion: Justice William J. Brennan, Jr stated that not letting the students publish the articles in the schools newspaper violated the first amendment right because it censors the student expression when it doesn t disrupt the other students class work or goes against the rights of the other students. HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 April 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836%23transcrip?page=11>. Wikipedia contributors. "William J. Brennan, Jr.." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Mar. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 18

Texas Vs Johnson, 1989 Arden Cashion Background information: In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Hamilton burned an American flag as a means of protest against the Reagan Administrative policies. He did this in a very public place intentionally, causing serious offense to many onlookers. Because of this public spectacle, Johnson was arrested on the spot for disregarding the state's law making it illegal to willingly or knowingly destroy a state or national flag. Issue(s): According to the 1 st Amendment, every United States citizen maintains the right to have freedom of speech, expression and religion. So in response, the case went to The Supreme Court. Texas used two key arguments to assert Johnson's guilt: they wanted to prevent public dissatisfaction triggered by the offense flag burning inflicts, and to preserve the respect and integrity the American flag holds. The problem was, the Supreme Court judges had to consider previously stated argument and the fact that punishing and convicting this man would contradict the 1 st Amendment by going against his personal choice of self-expression Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 4 in Johnsons favor. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether or not Johnson's actions fell under the category of expressive conduct or expressive speech. Even though the constitution states that when expressive conduct and speech coincide, the government has the right to place certain restrictions upon the given persons, they ruled in Johnson's favor. In response to the judges' opinions, Texas claimed that Johnson's flag burning counted as a harmful, non-speech action, and that he could have resorted to other ways of expression without causing the offense of bystanders. But despite Texas' argument, the penal code of Texas clearly states that they have no right to restrict speeches and actions simply because they are controversial or may raise offense to others. If the law relates to speech freedoms within the state, it must coincide with the 1st Amendment. Only speech or actions that threaten the well-being of others or involve violent conduct may be limited or restrained. Concurring Opinion: Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy said, Cases like this one sometimes exact a personal toll on the Justices, rendering judicial review an extremely difficult exercise. Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a poetic dissent that celebrated the history of the American flag. He also stated that it was largely an appeal to sentiment, focusing on the history and meaning of the American flag, as well as the ideas it represents.. Downs, Donald A. Oxford Compainion to the US Supreme Court: Texas vs. Johnson. Answers.com, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2003. "TEXAS v. JOHNSON." Texas v. Johnson. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2013. Page 19

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 Keisha Ijames Background Information: At a school assembly, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what others observed and believed was a graphic, sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which substantially interferes with the educational process including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. Issues: First Amendment Freedom of Speech Fraser was suspended from school for two days. Fraser was so upset; he protested that his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech had been violated. He sued school district officials. The school district then appealed to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Fraser s favor with a wordy opinion. Then the school district asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the case and agree to do so. Supreme Court s Decision: 7 to 2 in Bethel School Districts favor The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Students do not shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the school gate. Though the Court did bring up Tinker v. Des Moines case, which upheld the right of students to express themselves where their words (or the wearing of a protest armband) are non-disruptive and could not be seen as connected with the school, Fraser limits the scope of that ruling, by prohibiting certain styles of expression that are sexually vulgar. The court said, Students do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults outside of school. Concurring Opinion: Justice Brennan stated that,..high school students may properly be reprimanded for giving a speech at a high school assembly which school officials conclude disrupted the school's educational mission. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thurgood Marshall said that students remarks were disruptive of the school s educational mission. In Justice John Paul Stevens opinion, he said that the school districts conduct rule was too vague to be enforced fairly under the 1st Amendment s guarantee of free speech. Bethel v. Fraser: The Precedent. 2.maxwell.syr.edu Web 17 Apr. 2013 BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 v. FRASER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2013 Palmer, Sharon Bethel Bulletin: Bethel s Hometown Information Source bethelbulletin.com 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2013 Patrick, John J., Pious, Richard M., Ritchie, Donald M. Oxford Guide to the US Government: Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser Answers.com Oxford University Press Copyright 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002. Web 17 Apr. 2013 Page 20

Summary of Supreme Court Cases By: Thomas Fisher Mapp v. Ohio In the Supreme Court Case Mapp v. Ohio, a woman was arrested for having illegal material in her house. The police searched her house without a search warrant or probable cause and arrested her; she went to court and was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the district court s decision because it violated her fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that no one s property can be searched without a search warrant or probable cause. The Supreme Court stated that the evidence could not be used in court because it was obtained illegally. Miranda v. Arizona Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, robbery, and kidnapping in Phoenix, Arizona. While being interrogated he confessed to his charges and was sent to prison for twenty to thirty years. The Supreme Court overturned the district court s decision because Miranda claimed that he did not know his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Supreme Court s vote was five to four, in Miranda s favor. Miranda had a re-trial in which the confession was not used against him. There was more evidence found against Miranda and in his re-trial he was convicted and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. Now every time someone is arrested they must be read their Miranda Warnings. Gideon v. Wainwright Clarence Gideon was seen outside of a pool hall that had been broken into. Gideon was arrested for the robbery of the Bay Harbor Poolroom, while in court Gideon asked to be appointed a lawyer because he could not afford one. The judge told him that the state of Florida is not required to appoint a lawyer unless it is a capital offence. Gideon tried to defend himself in court but was unsuccessful; he was sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court overruled the district court s decision because the Fourteenth Amendment states that states must provide equal protection under the law and the Sixth Amendment guarantees council. The Supreme Courts vote was nine to zero unanimous. In Gideon s re-trial he was found innocent and he was freed. Page 21

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 By: Nathan Holtsclaw Background Information Clarence Gideon was seen one night outside of the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City Florida in 1961. This pool hall was broken into and robbed the night he was seen, do to this he was accused and tried in court. Constitutional Issues The issue was the fourteenth amendment and sixth amendment. The fourteenth amendment states that the U.S. states must provide equal protection under the law. The sixth amendment guarantees council. The issue of this is that Gideon could not afford a lawyer at his trial, he asked for one to be appointed to him, and under the law of Florida he did not have to be provided one. Supreme Court s Decision Gideon won his case nine to zero, the vote was unanimous. The court decided that Gideon had the right to be represented in court by an appointed attorney if he could not afford one. It overruled Betts v. Brady. Concurring Opinion The Supreme Court thought that Gideon was denied equal protection under the law by not having a proper lawyer to defend him. The precedent set was that every citizen under the constitution has the right to a lawyer in trial. Dissenting Opinion There was no dissenting opinion over the case and decision of Gideon v Wainwright. Sources Dudley, Mark. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Right to Counsel. New York A Division of Henry Holt and Company. 1995 Kamisar, Yale. "Gideon v. Wainwright." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 575-576. Student Resources In Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Gideon v. Wainwright Turns 50: A History of Your Right to Counsel.Article-3.March 18, 2013. Web image. April 17, 2013. Page 22

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) By: Victoria Washington Background Information: In 1963 Ernesto Miranda, who was a Phoenix resident, was arrested at his home and charged with rape, robbery, and kidnapping. He was identified by witnesses and interrogated. During his interrogation which lasted for two hours, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes. At his trial he was found guilty and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. In court, Miranda argued that he was not announced his rights to remain silent and the right to a counsel prior to the police interrogation. Constitutional Issue: The amendment that Miranda used in his defense was under the 5 th Amendment; a criminal suspect has the right to remain silent and the right to refuse being a witness against himself. What was the courts decision? : The Supreme Court s decision was a vote of five to four and his conviction was overturned. On June 13, 1966, the judge ruled that the jury in a criminal trial could not use evidence of Miranda s confession because the police didn t inform Miranda of his rights to remain silent and the right to refuse to testify against oneself. At his second trial, Miranda s previous confession was not used as evidence. He was convicted once again and sent to prison for 20-30 years. Concurring Opinion: There were not any concurring opinions. The precedent set was at the time of arrest suspects can t be questioned until informed of their rights and the Miranda Warnings were created and enforced by the court and required for the police to read. The Miranda Warnings are your rights read to you when you are arrested. Dissenting Opinion: There was one dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White. Based on the Justices opinion on the court decision, they argued that the decision was not supported but the constitution and that there was no such right in the constitution. The dissenting in part opinion was written by Justice Clark. He argued that the right to counsel had already existed in the 6 th Amendment which meant that the court didn t violate Miranda s rights to a counsel. David, Shestokas J. Enersto Miranda. 2013. www.shestokas.com. Web Image. 14 Apr. 2013. Mc Bride, Alex. Miranda v. Arizona. www.pbs.org.pbs, Dec. 2006.Web.14. Apr. 2013. Miranda v. Arizona: An Overview and Discussion Questions. www.uscourts.gov. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Web.14 Apr. 2013. Page 23

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 By: Amanda Moore Background Information: The police illegally searched a woman s home without having a warrant, they were looking for gambling materials, but instead they found other illegal materials such as pornography. Mapp was arrested, prosecuted, and then found guilty. She got sentenced for the possession of pornography. At her trial, no search warrant was ever introduced as evidence. Later her conviction got over turned because it violated the 4 th amendment. This also violated the exclusionary rule that was first set in Weeks v. US 1914. This rule doesn t allow the prosecution to use the evidence that was gathered illegally too wrongfullys convict the defendant. Issue(s): Unreasonable searches and seizures, 4 th amendment In the 4 th amendment it states that no person s property shall be searched without a warrant or probable cause. The argument that came up was, should the evidence obtained illegally be admissible from court and should she be freed. Supreme Court s Decision: Six to three in Mapp s favor The Supreme Court decided that the evidence that the police illegally found was to be excluded from court because it was obtained in violation of the 4 th amendment. Concurring Opinion: Justice Tom Clark stated that he believed the 14 th amendment also had part in this ruling by giving people the right to privacy. Dissenting Opinion: The 4 th amendment was only used in the federal government; this overruled the law that illegally gathered evidence should be dismissed from trial. Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013 "Jamail Center for Legal Research Tarlton Law Library The University of Texas School of Law." Tarlton Law Library. N.p., n.d. Web Image. 16 Apr. 2013. "Mapp v. Ohio." Mapp v. Ohio. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "What Were the Results of Mapp v Ohio?" WikiAnswers. Answers, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 24

Summary of Cases By: Jessica Ward Furman v. Georgia, 1967 It was around midnight, and William Furman was in the process of robbing a house. He was carrying a gun and the owner came down and Furman dropped the gun and it accidently went off when the gun landed. The misfire killed the owner. This case dealt with the eighth and fourteenth amendment, along with the death penalty. The eighth amendment is about cruel and unusual punishment, while the fourteenth is about the right to life, liberty, and property. Furman felt that these rights had been violated. The court ruled 5 to 4 in Furman s favor. The court ruled in his favor because they decided that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. One of the concurring opinions was that the death penalty was unnecessary. The dissenting opinion was that the courts should not have control over the effectiveness of the way people are punished. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Gregg had been convicted of armed robbery and murder, and the jury had sentenced him to death. Gregg wanted to challenge his sentence. Gregg stated that the death penalty went against his rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. This case dealt with the eighth and fourteenth amendment. Gregg felt that the death penalty was a contradiction to his right to no cruel and unusual punishment. Also, Gregg felt that they were violating his right to life, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Georgia. The court ruled that the death penalty did not violate the eighth and fourteenth amendment. This case overturned the ruling in Furman v. Georgia. There was no concurring opinion in this case. The dissenting opinion is that the death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual punishment and that it goes against the Constitution. New Jersey v. TLO A girl was in a school bathroom when an assistant principal came in and the bathroom was filled with smoke. The assistant principle had suspicion of the girl and searched her purse. TLO felt that her rights had been violated and took her case to the state supreme court. The issue was search and seizure and the fourth amendment. TLO felt that the assistant principle didn t have a right to search her purse. The ruling was 6 to 3 in favor of New Jersey. It was agreed that the student s right of the fourth amendment was limited while in school. A school official only needs reasonable suspicion to search the property of a student. The concurring opinion was the rights of adolescents are not the same as adults. The dissenting opinion was that they were unclear between probable and reasonable cause. Page 25

Furman v. Georgia, 1967 By: Olivia Norman Background Information: William Henry Furman broke into a house around midnight. The owner of the house had just gone to bed. Minutes later, he heard strange noises and decided to check downstairs. He gets to the bottom of the stairs and sees a man robbing his house, holding a gun. In an attempt to escape, Furman dropped his gun. It misfired when it hit the floor, accidentally killing the owner of the house. He was then taken to court and charged with the death penalty. He thought this was ridiculous and appealed the execution. Issue(s): Death Penalty, 8 th and 14 th amendments The eight amendment states that cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. One of the fourteenth amendment s major points is the right to life, liberty, and property. Furman felt that all of these rights were violated. Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 4 in Furman s favor The court ruled in Furman s favor because they felt that the death penalty was a form of cruel and unusual punishment and infringed the Constitution. There was a precedent set that when choosing people for the death sentence, they cannot take race, social and economic status, and physical disabilities into their decision. Concurring Opinions: Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall both agreed that sentencing him to the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. Brennan found the punishment degrading to human dignity, arbitrarily severe, and unnecessary. Marshall attacked the penalty most directly, finding it excessive, unnecessary, and offensive to contemporary values. Dissenting Opinions: The dissenters argued that the courts should not challenge legislative judgments about the desirability and effectiveness of punishments. They also pointed to opinion polls showing general public support for the penalty. "Furman V. Georgia." Answers.com. Answers, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "FURMAN v. GEORGIA." Furman v. Georgia. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. "It s Time for Delaware to Repeal the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 26

Gregg v. Georgia 1976 By: Nicholas Hussey Background Information: In 1973 Troy Leon Gregg was convicted of the murders of Fred Simmons and Bob Moore. They had picked him and Dennis Weaver up while they were hitchhiking along side the road in 1973. They dropped Dennis off and continued along the way. When they stopped at a rest stop he shot and killed the men so as to rob them of cash that they had reportedly been seen carrying quite a bit of. Issues: Death sentence, 8th amendment The 8th amendment states that Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It was questioned whether or not the death sentence was cruel and unusual. Supreme Court s Decision: The Supreme court ruled in favor of giving Gregg the death sentence 7-2. The court ruled the death penalty constitutional and overturned Furman v. Georgia. This case was the first one that was upheld by the Supreme court because they set new rules as to where the death penalty can apply. They ruled that it wasn t cruel and unusual due to the guidelines that Georgia followed when ruling. Troy Leon Gregg Concurring Opinion: There was no concurring opinion. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Brennan said that moral concepts" require us to hold that the law has progressed to the point where we should declare that the punishment of death, like punishments on the rack, the screw, and the wheel, is no longer morally tolerable in our civilized society "Gregg v. Georgia Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. Gregg v. Georgia. (2013, March 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:27, April 14, 2013. "New Georgia Encyclopedia: Gregg v. Georgia (1976)." New Georgia Encyclopedia: Gregg v. Georgia (1976). N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. "Troy Leon Gregg Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers." Troy Leon Gregg Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Page 27

New Jersey v T.L.O, 1985 By: Ikemba Megwara Background Information: The case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O involved a student from Piscataway Township High School and a school official from the school. The student was caught possessing illegal drugs in the restroom. She was also carrying a pack of cigarettes, rolling paper, a pipe and dollar bills in her purse. She was accused of selling drugs because of the dollar bills also. Smoking was prohibited at the time but students were assigned a designated area to smoke. She says that she never smoked in her life at the time. Issue(s): Search and Seizure, 4 th amendment The case was argued on March 28, 1984, reargued on October 2, 1984 and finally decided on January 15, 1985. The student was widely known as Terri Lynn Owens but is abbreviated T.L.O because she is underage. The student argued that the 4 th amendment had been violated and that school officials should respect student rights and privacy. New Jersey debated that students are under their protection and that they have the right to search students without a search warrant. New Jersey also stated that the exclusionary laws do not apply to this matter. Supreme Court s Decision: 6 to 3 in New Jersey s favor The courts concluded the case with stating that school officials had the right to search students under reasonable suspicion. That gave public school officials the right to search students under probable cause. The case was upheld, and the student was sentenced to a juvenile detention center and had to attend community service since she was underage. Concurring Opinion: Justice Powel and Justice O Connor say that they agree with the court s opinion. They thought that student educational settings shouldn t be offered the same protection of search and seizures rather than adults and other children outside of school. Dissenting Opinion: The courts concurred that majority s reasoning about the schools approach to school searches, probable cause. "New Jersey v. TLO (1985)." Infoplease. Infoplease, 2005. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. New Jersey v. T.L.O.. 2005. Photograph. streetlaw.orgweb. 14 Apr 2013. "New Jersey v. T. L. O." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. Page 28

Supreme Court Case Project Group 6 Team Leader: Comlan Wesseh Of the various cases we studied over this unit, the three that were given to my group and I really stood out to me in their uniqueness, significance, and also the sensitive subjects they covered. From a man s gun going off to a teenage girl have various illegal items in her purse, I feel as if my whole group learned a from these cases. Furman v. Georgia brought a reform to the arbitrary imposition of penalizing a person by death. Although William Furman was rightfully convicted of murder during a felony which would normally earn him the death penalty he appealed for it not to be death under the statement that he did not intentionally murder the owner of the home in which he broke into. In the end Furman did not get the death penalty edging out the opposition 5-4. Troy Gregg was not so fortunate. In Gregg v. Georgia Troy Leon Gregg was charged with armed robbery and murder. He appealed that it was cruel and unusual punishment but the supreme court ruled against it thus ending the precedent set by Furman v. Georgia. New Jersey v. TLO was on a totally different topic. TLO claimed that A vice principal searching in her purse because he saw smoke was a violation of her protection against search and seizures. The Supreme Court ruled that since I was on school grounds and she was on school property all the vice principal needed was probable cause. By: Comlan Wesseh Page 29

Furman vs. Georgia By: David Sullivan Background Information: A man named William Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member found him. He attempted to flee the home but in doing so he tripped and fell. The gun the he had on him went off when he hit the ground and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder was put on death row. Issue(s): It was concerning the 8 th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) It was also concerning the 14 th amendment (life, liberty, and property) William Furman took this to court because he believed it was cruel and unusual punishment which falls under the 8 th amendment. Supreme Court s Decision: 5 to 4 in Furman s favor The courts one page opinion said that the imposition of the death penalty in theses cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the constitution. Concurring opinion: Justices Brennan and Marshall said they believed it to be unconstitutional. But the other justices focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often on a racial bias against blacks. Dissenting opinion: The four justices argued that the courts should challenge legislative judgments about the desirability and effectiveness of punishments. Citations: Answers.com. Answers, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. "Furman V. Georgia - Sammy's Cases." Sammy's Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Furman v. Georgia the Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2013. Page 30

Gregg.v Georgia, 1973 By: Matthew Webb Background Information: A man named Troy Gregg was arrested for committed armed robbery and murder, and then was sentenced to death. Gregg believed the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment, and thought that made it in violation of the constitution. The case was taken to the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Cruel And Unusual Punishment, 8 th amendment, Deprived of Life, Liberty, Happiness, 14 th amendment Troy Gregg believed that because the government would be putting him to death, that that punishment was considered cruel and unusual. Also, Gregg believed that because the government would be taking his life, this was considered as violating the fourteenth amendment, or the taking of his life. Supreme Court s Decision: 7 to 2 in favor of Georgia The Court ruled that in extreme conditions such as the one which Troy Gregg found himself in such as deliberately taking another s life that the judiciary system had the right to uses the power to take his life. The court said that the death penalty was alright to uses as long it was used appropriately. Troy Leon Gregg Concurring Opinion: There was no concurring opinion. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Brennan believed that the death penalty was to cruel for society, therefore he voted for Troy Gregg in the case. "GREGG v. GEORGIA." Oyez.org. Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 13 Apr. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2013 "Troy Leon Gregg Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers." Troy Leon Gregg Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Page 31

New Jersey V. T.L.O, 1985 By. Riley Mcpherson Background Information: A high school student named T.L.O and her friend were caught smoking in the bathroom at school. Her friend admitted to smoking in the bathroom and was given a three-day suspension but T.L.O said she wasn t smoking in the bathroom. So the vice principle Mr. Choplick took her purse and found cigarettes and the dumped out all of her purse on his desk then found rolling paper a bag that smelled like marijuana lots of money and a card say who owed her money and how much. She thought this was against the fourth amendment. Issue(s): Illegal search and seizure, 4 th amendment T.L.O thought that the vice principle violated the 4 th amendment when he searched Her purse without a warrant or probable cause. This amendment is to protect people from random searches by the police for no reason. T.L.O thought that they needed probably cause or a warrant to search her purse and they had neither and there was no proof that she was smoking so it didn t mean the principle could search her purse. Supreme Courts Decision: It was a 6-3 vote in favor of the New Jersey state It did not violate the fourth amendment when Mr.choplick searched T.L.O. purse. They determined that school officials only need reasonable suspension to search students stuff and that with being caught possible smoking in the bathroom it gave them reasonable suspicion to search her purse and when he found the cigarettes in the purse that then gave him enough to search the rest of her purse and the stuff he found was not in violation of the fourth amendment. Concurring Opinion: As Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. it is simply unrealistic to think that students have the same subjective expectations of privacy as the population generally but schools can t just search students stuff at any time for no reason. Dissenting Opinion: Justice William J. Bernnan Jr. said school officials, just like police should need probably cause to search student s private belongings it violates the fourth amendment if you don t. "New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)." Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. Daniel E. Brannon, Jr., Richard Clay Hanes, and Rebecca Valentine. Ed. Lawrence W. Baker. 2nd ed. Vol. 2: Criminal Justice and Family Law. Detroit: UXL, 2011. 467-471. 2013 Photo of Warren E. Burger. N.d. Photograph. Wikipedia.ord. Trans. TYC. Wikipedia, 27 Mar. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. Page 32

1. Vocabulary 2. Checks and Balances Chart 3. Landmark Supreme Court Cases Page 33