Table of Contents
Teams
Topic
Team 1
Powers of the Federal Government
Leader
Casey Eisinger
Jake Burcaw
Angelica Henry
Alissa Notine
Matthew Ingram
Team 2
Leader
Lauren Perkins
Stephen Livingston
Youlmy Sorto
Anna LaVenture
Sydney Sutcliffe
Tony Silverest
Brett Saunders
Section Introduction and Summary
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
Texas v. Johnson, 1989
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988
Texas Vs Johnson, 1989
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986
Rights of the Accussed
Thomas Fisher
Nathan Holtsclaw
Victoria Washington
Amanda Moore
Team 5
Leader
Section Introduction and Summary
Korematsu v. US, 1944
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964
Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 1978
Plessy v Ferguson, 1896
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
The First Amendment
Vernon Espinoza
Sam Bonney
David Griffin
Philip Bachman
Tyler Thomas
Arden Cashion
Keisha Ijames
Team 4
Leader
Section Introduction and Summary
Marbury V. Madison
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819
Equal Protection Under the Law
Team 3
Leader
Page
Section Introduction and Summary
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Rights of the Accussed
Jessica Ward
Olivia Norman
Nicholas Hussey
Ikemba Megwara
Team 6
Section Introduction and Summary
Furman v. Georgia, 1967
Gregg v. Georgia 1976
New Jersey v T.L.O, 1985
Rights of the Accused
2-6
2
3
4
5
6
7-13
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-20
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21-24
21
22
23
24
25-28
25
26
27
28
29-32
Leader
Comlan Wesseh
David Sullivan
Matthew Webb
Riley Mcpherson
Section Introduction and Summary
Furman vs. Georgia
Gregg .v Georgia, 1973
New Jersey V. T.L.O, 1985
App.
Appendix
Supplementary Materials
33-40
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Vocabulary
Check and Balances Chart
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
34-37
38
39-40
Page 1
29
30
31
32
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)
Sources:
“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
Thomas Gibbons
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:
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.
Sources:
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.
Sources:
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 14th
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 14th 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 13th and 14th
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 14th 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: 14th amendment, Equal Protection
Clause
Korematsu thought that he could prove Executive Order 9066
was against the 14th amendment by explaining the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
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.
Sources:
"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:
14th 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.
Sources:
“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 CharlotteMecklenburg 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, 14th Amendment, School Districts.
An argument arose that the 14th 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.
Sources:
"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, 14th Amendment
This trial talked about how the University of California went against the 14th 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 14th
amendment.
Dissenting Opinion:
The other four justices believed that the use of
race as a factor in higher education admissions was
constitutionally acceptable.
Sources:
“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,” 14th 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 13th and 14th amendments were
being violated. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the
14th 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 14th amendment was not being violated.
The 13th 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.
Sources:
“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, 14th 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 14th Amendment.
Concurring Opinion:
There was no Concurring opinion in this case.
Dissenting Opinion:
There was also no Dissenting opinion in this case.
Sources:
"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.”
Sources:
"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.
Sources:
“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.”
Sources:
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, 1st 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.
Sources:
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 1st 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 1st 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..
Sources:
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.
Sources:
“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 5th 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 6th Amendment which meant that the court didn’t
violate Miranda’s rights to a counsel.
Sources:
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
4th 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, 4th amendment
In the 4th 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 4th amendment.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Tom Clark stated that he believed the 14th amendment also had part in this ruling
by giving people the right to privacy.
Dissenting Opinion:
The 4th amendment was only used in the federal government; this overruled the law that
illegally gathered evidence should be dismissed from trial.
Sources:
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, 8th and 14th 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.”
Sources:
"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…”
Sources:
"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 |
Encyclopedia of Murderers. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
Page 27
Murderpedia, the
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, 4th 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 4th 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”.
Sources:
"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 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)
It was also concerning the 14th amendment (life, liberty, and property)
William Furman took this to court because he believed it was cruel and unusual punishment
which falls under the 8th 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, 8th amendment, Deprived of Life,
Liberty, Happiness, 14th 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.
Sources:
"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, 4th amendment
T.L.O thought that the vice principle violated the 4th 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.
Sources:
"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.
2.
3.
Vocabulary
Checks and Balances Chart
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Page 33
Vocabulary
Terms
Definitions
Ambassador
person officially representing the interests of the United States
Amendments
Annexation
Anti-federalist
Appellate Jurisdiction
Apportionment
a change in, or addition to the constitution or a law
Autocracy
Ballot
Bicameral
Bill
Bill of Rights
Boycott
Bureaucracy
Cabinet
Caucus
Censure
Census
Checks and Balances
Chief Diplomat
Chief Executive
Cloture
Colony
Commander and Chief
Committee
Compensation
Compromise
Concurrent
Confederation
Conference Committee
Connecticut Plan
Constituents
Constitution
process of extending a municipalities boundaries
people who were against the Constitution
authority to hear a case that is appealed from a lower court
population of each state that determines the number of representatives to which each
state is entitled
divine right or a small group which holds power
device by which a voter registers their choice in an election
A legislature with two houses, or chambers.
a proposed law
first ten amendments to the Constitution. State basic rights
refusal to buy certain goods
large network of individuals and federal agencies who oversee the execution of law
group of advisors to the President. They head the important executive departments.
a meeting to nominate people to run for office. A meeting of party leaders and/or
members to conduct party business
vote of formal disapproval of a member's actions
a population count. Occurs every ten years in the US on years ending in a zero.
keeps each branch in their proper place. (Madison)
gives the President the responsibility of dealing with other countries
job of the President to carry out the nation’s laws
procedure that allows each senator to speak only one hour on a bill under debate
people who in one place that are governed by people in another place
power that makes the President the leader of the armed forces
a group of congressmen that is specialized to a certain area that reviews bills
repayment
majority rule with minority rights
both state and national powers
loose collection of states that have a common interest
a place of discussion about a bill and how it can be changed
(Great Compromise) outlined the legislative branch
the group of people that a politician represents
plan that provides the rules for government
Page 34
Constitutionalism
Council
Declaration of
Independence
Defendant
Delegated Powers
Democratic Party
Direct Democracy
Districts
Division of Powers
Electorate
Enumerated
Executive Branch
Executive Order
Expressed
Federal System
Federalist
Filibuster
Floor Action
General Election
Gerrymandering
House of
Representatives
Implied
Implied
Incorporated
Incumbents
Independence
Independent Party
Inherent
Intolerable Acts
Enumerated
Judicial Branch
Judicial Review
Jurisdiction
Legislative Branch
Limited Government
of or having to do with the Constitution
legislative branch of a local government
document written by Thomas Jefferson, signed July 4, 1776 (Gave freedom from control
by Great Britain)
person who must defend his or her innocence against charges
powers of the National Government
a group that wants "...opportunity to every American, and responsibility from every
American. And today’s Democratic Party is determined to reawaken the great sense of
American community" www.democrat.gov
people make all decisions on their own
a grouped area that is looked at as a whole for reasons like voting and schools
when power is shared between central and state government
the people eligible to vote
unnumbered powers
enforces the laws (Article 2 of the Constitution)
Rule or command of the President which has the force of law
powers of the Legislative Branch written out in the Constitution
(Federalism) system of government where power is divided between local and a central
governments
people who were for the Constitution
to keep talking until a majority of the Senate either agrees to modify its most
controversial provision
all of the things that happen to a bill in Congress when it is not in committee
consists of all of the Primary nominees
when district lines are drawn in order for one group to gain an advantage in elections
the lower house where representation is based on population
powers Congress has because of the elastic clause
Because of the elastic clause
city or town with a town charter
members that have already been in office and won the re-election
freedom to govern yourself
a party based on reform, but shows all sides on the political issues. www.cuip.org
national government has these powers because they are the government
laws put into action act because of the Boston Tea Party
numbered powers that are written out in the Constitution
interprets the laws (Article 3 of the Constitution)
when a law or actions are determined to be unconstitutional or not
authority of a court to hear a case
makes the laws (Article 1 of the constitution)
not absolute power
Page 35
Lobbyist
Magna Carta
Majority
Majority Leaders
Mercantilism
Monarchy
Municipality
Nomination
Oligarchy
Ordinance
Original Jurisdiction
Parliament
Parliamentary
Procedure
Plaintiff
Political Parties
Polling Place
Popular Sovereignty
President of the Senate
Presidential succession
Primary
Quartering Act
Ratify
Redistricting
Reform Party
Registration
Representative
Democracy
Republic
Republican Party
Reserved Powers
Rider
a person which is employed to convince representatives to vote a certain way
English document that King James was forced to sign. (Protected the nobles rights and
made John’s power not absolute)
the larger amount of the people that agree on a vote or issue
Speaker's top assistants
theory that you should sell more than you buy
Autocracy, based on divine right (power goes to the heirs)
city or town with organized government with authority to make laws
the process of selecting candidates for office
power held by a single group and a person (dictatorship)
law effective only within city limits
the authority of a trial court to be first to hear a case
the name of Britain’s legislature
the way to make a movement in Congress. The proper form of conducting business. See
Roberts Rules of Order
Person who initiates a law suit
a group of people with similar beliefs about political issues
place where people go to vote
The belief that power should be held by the people and that the country should be ruled
by the people
the presiding officer of a Senate: in Congress, the Vice President of the United States
rules to determine who is next in line for the President’s seat if unoccupied (25th
Amendment)
when there is only one nominee
law which forced people to allow British soldiers to stay in their homes
to approve or pass
process of setting up new district lines after apportionment
...believes in a Balanced Tailored Trade program that promotes the economic interests
and welfare of all our citizens while safeguarding domestic production."
www.reformparty.org
the process by which your name is put on to a list show that you can vote. This can be
done by contacting county clerk’s office
Type of democracy where the people vote for persons to make decisions for them
(delegates)
voter’s have sovereign right
a group that wants "... the restoration of self-government by breaking Washington’s
monopoly on power. The American people want their country back. We will help the to
regain it." www.rnc.org
powers reserved by the states
a bill, that most likely will not pass, that is tacked on to another bill that will most likely
Page 36
Rural
Senate
Separation of Power
Session
Social Contract
Speaker and President
Pro Tempore:
Speaker of the House
Special Session
Spoiler or 3rd Party
Stamp Act
Standing Committee
Suffrage
Supremacy Clause
Term
Town Charter
Town Meetings
Treaty
Unconstitutional
Unincorporated
Veto
Voter Efficiency
Whips
Zoning
pass, as an amendment
area where not many people live
the upper house of congress where the representation is equal from each state
central government is divided into three branches
meeting of Congress to conduct business (lasts about a year)
The belief that the government of a country has a moral duty to ensure the needs of it’s
people are taken care of, and that the people give the government power to do so
person who presides over the House or the Senate when the Speaker or President is now
present
the presiding officer of the House of Representatives, chosen by and from the majority
party in the house
an unscheduled meeting often called by the President
a smaller group of voters that splits the votes
taxes on legal documents, pamphlets, etc...
a permanent committee that reviews legislation and issues
the right to vote
law of the nation "Supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6 of the Constitution)
time in office served
document defining a city’s boundaries, authority and government
gathering of local citizens to discuss or vote on important issues
A formal agreement between two or more countries
goes against the Constitution
part of a county that is outside of cities or towns
President's power to reject or "kill" a bill that has been passed by Congress
the lack of a sense of power to achieve the desired results (many people do not show up
to vote)
people who serve as assistant floor leaders in the House
specialization of an area
Data:
Audra Bauman, Sarah Beckner, Danny Lovell,
Brittany Wooten, Amanda Day, and Allen Rawls
Page 37
President may
veto legislation,
call special
sessions, appeal
to people.
President
appoints
judges.
Congress creates
agencies and
programs,
appropriates
funds, may
override vetoes,
may impeach
president, and
senate approves
judges
Judges are
appointed for
life, are free
from executive
control, courts
may declare acts
of executive
branch
unconstitutional.
Courts may declare
acts of congress
unconstitutional.
Congress creates
lower courts and can
impeach judges.
By Brent Polston
Mr McVicker
3rd Period
“…be the means of keeping each other in their proper place”
James Madison on the system of Checks and Balances
Federalist Paper #51
Page 38
Landmark Supreme Court Decisions
The Case of…
Year
Issue
Marbury Vs. Madison
1803
Judicial Review
McCulloch Vs.
Maryland
1819
Implied Powers
Gibbons Vs. Ogden
1824
Supremacy of
National Law
Plessy Vs. Ferguson
1896
Segregation
Korematsu Vs. U.S.
1919
Free Speech
Brown Vs. Board of
Education of Topeka
Kansas
1954
Segregation
Mapp Vs. Ohio
1961
Rights of Citizens
Engel Vs. Vitale
1962
Freedom of
Religion
Gideon Vs. Wainwright
1963
Right to Council
Miranda Vs. Arizona
1966
Rights of the
Accused
Tinker Vs. Des Moines
1969
Free Speech
Bakke Vs. Board of
Regents of the
University of California
1978
Race
New Jersey Vs. TLO
1985
Search and Seizure
/ Probable Cause
Heart of Atlanta Vs.
United States
1964
Civil Rights
Page 39
Decision
1st Supreme Court decision to declare an act
of Congress unconstitutional. Established the
power of Judicial Review.
Allowed a broader interpretation of the
Constitution in determining implied powers.
(The Elastic Clause)
Established National Supremacy
Federal laws take priority over state laws in
regulating interstate commerce.
(Supremacy Clause)
Established segregation.
“Separate but
Equal”
The government may limit your rights in time
of national danger. (5th/14th amendments)
Determined that “Separate but Equal” in
public schools was unconstitutional. Over
turned the case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson
Bill of Rights and States. Extended the 14th
amendment to protect citizens against the
state. “Due Process”
Determined that public schools cannot require
students to recite prayers.
Provided free legal council to defendants
accused of felonies who cannot afford a
lawyer.
Accused persons must be informed of their
rights upon the time of arrest. Right to remain
silent, right to an attorney (lawyer). “You
have the right to remain silent…” (Miranda
Warnings)
Free speech of students cannot be abridged.
Unless it shows evidence of the possibility of
a “Substantial Disruption”
Colleges may consider a person’s race as one
of the conditions of admission, but not the
only one. College admission policy.
Right of schools to ensure an environment for
learning.
Search and Seizure without
probable cause by school officials is
constitutional.
Segregation is illegal in all places. Upheld the
Civil rights act as constitutional
Swann Vs. Charlotte
1969
De-Segregation
Texas Vs. Johnson
1989
Free Speech
Bethel Vs. Fraser
1986
Free Speech /
Rights of Students
Hazelwood Vs.
Kuhlmeir
1988
Free Speech /
Rights of Students
Furman Vs. Georgia
1967
Cruel and Unusual
Punishment / Death
Penalty
1967
Cruel and Unusual
Punishment / Death
Penalty
Greg Vs. Georgia
Schools systems could use what ever tools or
methods at their disposal to de-segregate
schools. Forced bussing
Free expression and speech is protected even
if the expression is offensive to others.
School officials may determine what is
“vulgar and lewd” language and punish
persons for using it, in order to preserve the
“school’s basic educational mission.”
Schools have editorial power over school
sponsored events and publications.
The death penalty was unconstitutional under
state law because it was not administered
equally. States will change their laws in order
to solve the problems presented in Furman
Georgia.
The death penalty was constitutional as long
as it met certain criteria. No undue pain,
proportionate to the crime committed. Capital
punishment is allowed under Federal Law.
Who presides over Impeachment Trials in the Senate?
Who is the Current Supreme Court Chief Justice?
How Many Supreme Court Justices Are there?
Page 40