Table of Contents
Teams
Team 1
Students
Topic
Powers of the Federal Government
Page
2-5
Leader
Ellen Spencer
Rebecca Atkins
Madison Wiles
Abigail LeCompte
Section Introduction and Summary
Marbury V. Madison
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819
Team 2
Students
Equal Protection Under the Law
6-12
Leader
Kathryn Lyall
Alexa Nix
Jake Hutton
John Yount
Chloe Mayes
Cody Cochran
Jackie Elliott
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
Team 3
Students
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Erin Bendig
Bailey Boring
Courtland Sample
Katelyn Logan
Samantha Lawrence
Brady Allen
Kevin Lu
The First Amendment
13-19
Leader
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
Team 4
Students
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Randolph Harper
Izaiah Reynolds
Ashlynn Holton
Bria Lindsay
Rights of the Accussed
20-23
Leader
Section Introduction and Summary
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Team 5
Students
20
21
22
23
Isabella Bedoya-Patino
Babatunde Fakayode
Jonathan Card
Yadira Dorantes
Rights of the Accussed
24-27
Leader
Section Introduction and Summary
Furman v. Georgia, 1967
Gregg v. Georgia 1976
New Jersey v T.L.O, 1985
Team 6
Students
24
25
26
27
John Beck
Jacob Hallenbeck
Spencer Messick
Jackson Scott
Rights of the Accused
28-31
Leader
Section Introduction and Summary
Furman vs. Georgia
Gregg .v Georgia, 1973
New Jersey V. T.L.O, 1985
App.
Appendix
Supplementary Materials
32-39
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Vocabulary
Check and Balances Chart
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Page 1
28
29
30
31
33-36
37
38-39
By: Ellen Spencer
Powers of the Federal Government
These three cases all deal with the powers of the federal government. Each three of these cases
have given a guide to other court cases and also have established the ruling. Each case is well
known throughout many other cases and stand out because of their importance. The Federal
powers are what make these cases stand out from any ordinary case. These court cases were also
different because in every case there was a unanimous decision made by the judges in favor of
the defendant.
Marbury vs. Madison
This case was the first case in the Supreme Court to establish judiciary review. John Adams tried
to appoint William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace on the last day of his presidency, but did
complete the appointment before it was up. This was the first time in court history that a court
involved judiciary review in there ruling. What was being questioned was whether they could
have original jurisdiction. All four judges that were in the trail agreed on the same verdict. In the
end, William Marbury was entitled to the position that was granted by John Adams. But the
final decision belonged to the new President, Thomas Jefferson. This case is known by everyone
because of the first ever ruling using judiciary review.
McCulloch vs. Maryland
This court case dealt with a series of individual federal banks. McCulloch was the manager of
the Federal Bank in Baltimore, Maryland. McCulloch refused to pay the state tax imposed by
Maryland. This case presents a conflict between the national government and the state.
McCulloch v. Maryland worked under the constitution. The law that was taxing McCulloch was
considered to be unconstitutional which ruled in his favor. All seven judges riled in McCulloch’s
favor declaring the taxing unconstitutional. McCulloch v. Maryland ruled in favor of the
defendant because the Necessary and Proper Clause in the U.S.A Constitution. All of the judges
agreed on the same case making the ruling to be considerably easy. In the end McCulloch did not
have to pay any taxes that were enforced by the state.
Gibbons vs. Ogden
Ogden was given an exclusive license to run a ferry between New York and New Jersey.
Gibbons got a license to run a ferry in New York waters, there for interfering with Ogden’s
license. This case also uses a federal power. Intrastate Commerce The main issue of this court
was whether the state should have a close control of interstate commerce. Once again all six
judges ruled in Gibbons favor giving it a unanimous vote. The decision of the New York court
was reversed. In the end Gibbons won the case. Gibbons was allowed to run through ferry
throughout New York and New Jersey.
Page 2
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
By: Rebecca Atkins
Background Information:
William Marbury was chosen to become the justice of the peace for the District of
Columbia and in a last ditch effort to save his party after the recently lost election, John Adams
attempted to appoint him on the last night he was president. The appointments didn’t go through
and Marbury and the other Justices sued for their positions.
Issue(s):
Federal Powers
This court case dealt with the power of judicial review and fully established that power.
This was the first time judicial review was exercised.
Original Jurisdiction
Another issue that arose was whether or not the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction
in this case. It did as stated in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 “And shall have
exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings… and original, but not exclusive
jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers…”(Section 13).
Supreme Court’s Decision:
4 to 0 in Madison’s favor
John Marshall’s unanimous opinion was that the constitution is the supreme law
of the land and if the constitution gave them a power it was not to be trumped
by any other law or act made to restrict or allow judicial powers. Two of the
Judges did not participate because their appointments were on trial as well.
Concurring Opinion:
The 4 participating judges agreed unanimously so there were no concurring
opinions.
Dissenting Opinion:
Because all of the judges had the same opinion there were none.
Sources:
"Judiciary Act of 1789." Judiciary Act of 1789. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
“MARBURY v. MADISON.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April
2014.
"The Supreme Court and Judicial Review." Supreme Court & Judicial Review. N.p., n.d. Web.
11 Apr. 2014.
Page 3
Gibbons v Ogden, 1824
By: Maddie Wiles
Background Information:
Aaron Ogden had a state license to navigate his steamboat around New York, and
Thomas Gibbons had a federal license for his boat. Gibbons began to carry passengers around
the waters of New York, stealing all of Ogden’s business. So Ogden sued him, on the grounds
that Gibbons didn’t have a specified state license. New York courts said Gibbons was no longer
allowed to sail in New York waters; however Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court who took
Gibbons’ side and rejected Ogden’s argument.
Issues:
Interstate Commerce/ Commerce Clause
The main issue in this court case is whether the states or congress have more authority
over interstate commerce.
There was a clash of the regulation of steam vessels in New York and whether the federal
government would regulate the transportation of passengers across the Hudson River between
New York and New Jersey.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
6 to 0 in Gibbons’ favor
The court decided the true definition of commerce wasn’t only
the buying and selling of goods, but it describes the
“intercourse” between nations and parts of nations. The decision
of New York court was reversed, resulting in Gibbons victory.
Concurring Opinion:
The concurring opinion in this court case was that the national
government had exclusive power over interstate commerce,
denying state laws that interfere with that authority.
Dissenting Opinion:
There was not a dissenting opinion in this case; the final vote was 6 to 0 in Gibbon’s favor.
Sources:
McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham: Prentice Hall, 1993.Print. April 17,
2014.
North Carolina End-Of-Year Coach: Civics and Economics. Triumph Learning,2006. Print. April 17, 2014.
"Supremacy Clause." Civics Today. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2008.Print. April 17, 2014.
Oestreicher, Cheryl. "Gibbons Family Papers Finding Aid." Drew University Library . N.p., 1 Jan. 2007. Web.
April 17,2014.
Page 4
McCulloch v. Maryland
By: Abigail LeCompte
Background Information:
There was a conflict between the national government and a state, because Maryland was
taxing a local branch of the bank of the United States. This was a result of a Maryland law that
forced federally funded banks to use only a special paper to print money. James W. McCulloch,
who was a cashier at the bank, refused to use the paper. McCulloch said that the states could not
tax the federal government.
Issues:
Constitutional powers
The Maryland law that taxed branches of the United States bank was thought to be
unconstitutional because it inhibited congressional powers. The question was whether or not the
federal government had supremacy, considering these powers are not specifically listed in the
constitution.
Supreme Court Decision:
7 to 0 in McCulloch’s favor
The court declared the Maryland law unconstitutional; they
argued that "the power to tax implies the power to destroy."
This is because congress has unremunerated powers that are not
specifically listed in the constitution. This case established that
the federal government has supremacy over the states.
Concurring Opinion:
There were no concurring opinions because the decision was
unanimous.
Dissenting Opinion:
There were no dissenting opinions because the decision was
unanimous.
Sources:
“McCulloch v. Maryland”, Magruder’s American Government, Massachusetts: Prentice Hall,
1993.
MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12
April 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0>.
“McCulloch v. Maryland”, United States Government in Action: Supreme Court Case Studies,
New York: Glencoe, 2004.
Photo of Justice John Marshall, April 2, 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall>.
Page 5
Equal Protection Under the Law
By: Katie Lyall
According to the 14th Amendment, no person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without
“due process of law.” All U.S. citizens should be provided with equal protection under the law
no matter what race, religion, or background they come from.
Korematsu v. US, 1944
Korematsu was a part of the Japanese ethnic group. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in WWII,
the US decided to relocate people of Japanese decent for safety reasons. Korematsu refused to
relocate. In court, Korematsu believed his rights were being violated, but the Court stated that
relocation was necessary during time of war.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 1964
The Heart of Atlanta did not allow African Americans to stay at the motel. The Court ruled this
as a violation of the Civil Rights Act. This court case banned discrimination. You cannot be
denied the right to something because of your race.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969
During the time of this case, schools were still in the process of being integrated. There was not
enough racial mix in the schools to achieve the integration goal. This case allowed busing across
town in order to achieve successful integration.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
In this case Bakke was denied acceptance into medical school because he was black. This
violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protected minority students who may be replaced by
whites. Race can no longer be the only factor in determining admissions.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
Plessy persisted on sitting with the white people on the train. Since he was one-eighth black, he
was asked to sit in the colored section of the train; he refused to do so. “Separate but equal” was
established after this case. Segregation would remain in effect, but citizens would have equal
rights.
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
A black girl by the name of Linda Brown was denied the right to go to a nearby white school.
She wanted to go to the white school because it was closer and provided a better education. In
the case it was ruled that her 14th Amendment rights were violated because she was kept from the
quality of education she wanted. This case began the desegregation of schools. Southern states
were more resistant in desegregating schools.
Page 6
By: Alexa Nix
Background Information:
Korematsu v. United States
Fred Korematsu refused to obey wartime order and report to his internment camp.
Following the attacks on Pearl Harbor, all Japanese-Americans were ordered to go to
concentration camps. These camps were located towards the center of the United States and
Korematsu, not wanting to leave, stayed in San Leandro.
Issue(s):
Deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law,
5th Amendment
Korematsu claimed that the Executive Order violated his
personal rights, specifically those in the Bill of Rights including life,
liberty, or property.
Equal protection under the law, 14th amendment
Korematsu believed that there was a violation of both the
Fifth Amendment and a writ of habeas corpus, which states that a
person cannot be detained more than a certain amount of time.
Supreme Court Decision:
6 to 3 in favor of the United States
The Supreme Court decided that during wartime the Presidential
Executive Order was not unconstitutional.
Fred Korematsu
Concurring Opinion:
Felix Frankfurter wrote the only concurring opinion in the Korematsu v. US case.
Felix Frankfurter agreed with former Chief Justice Hughes that the government has "the power
to wage war successfully." Frankfurter states that the case must be judged based on the context
of war.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Roberts believed that the case was violation of Constitutional rights. Justice Murphy said,
“This exclusion of ‘all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,’ goes over ‘the
very brink of constitutional power.’ Justice Jackson says that Korematsu was born in the United
States so he should be treated like one.
Sources:
KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15
April 2014. Web.
Fred Korematsu. Petaluma Pie Company. 30 Jan. 2011. 14 Apr. 2014.
Page 7
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 1964
By: Jake Hutton
Background Information:
African Americans came to the heart of Atlanta motel in hopes of being able to rent a room. The
owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to African Americans, but allowed
them to work as motel staff. African Americans found this unfair. The owner filed suit in the
district court, saying that the public accommodations provisions were "unconstitutional". He lost
the case and took it to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Equal rights/discrimination, 14th amendment
An important part of the 14th amendment is that no
person can be “deprived of life, liberty, and property without
due process of law.”
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and exceeded its
commerce clause powers by taking away motels rights to
choose their own customers. The owner of the motel argued that
he was deprived of the 14th amendment right to operate his
business as he pleased.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
9 to 0 in U.S.’ favor
The court ruled this way because they believed it was a
violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Concurring opinion:
The precedent was that discrimination was banned. The court ruled that public businesses do not
have the right to select people that they think is the best fit. The commerce clause is what allows
the federal government to decide what goods and people are allowed.
Conflict:
The Supreme Court attempted to resolve whether or not an amendment was being violated at the
Heart of Atlanta Motel.
Sources:
"HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S." Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
"Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US", McClenaghan, William. American Government. (274). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall. 1993. Print.
Photo of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Web. April 15, 2014.
Page 8
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969
By: Alex Yount
Background Information:
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district created a policy stating that African
Americans and white students had the option of selecting any particular school they wanted to
attend. In 1965, Darius Swann’s son wanted to attend a nearby white school. His son was denied
enrollment. Darius Swann sued the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. The case went
through many lower court reviews before it was presented to the United States Supreme Court on
October 12, 1970.
Issue(s):
Equal Protection Laws, Desegregation, 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Equal
Protection Laws gives every U.S. citizen equal rights under the law.
The Equal Protection Laws also apply to the African Americans.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
9 to 0 in favor of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE
Chief Justice Warren Burger
Chief Justice Burger said that in order put an end to segregated
schools, one race schools should be eliminated and attendance zones shall be limited. The court
also ruled in favor of Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE because all black or mostly black schools
required very close inspection by the courts. In order to achieve desegregation of the schools,
Chief Justice Burger ruled that busing will be used. The courts ruling also overruled the Brown
v. Board of Education case.
Concurring Opinion:
Chief Justice Burger said that the courts should not use the white to black student ratio as a way
of desegregating each school and that not every school district should reflect racial composition.
Dissenting Opinion:
None
Sources:
"Landmark Supreme Court Case Studies: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education."
Glencoe Civics Today. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 394. Print.
Photo of Chief Justice Warren Burger, April 16, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/justices/warren_e_burger
Page 9
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. 1978
By: Chloe Mayes
Background Information:
Allan Bakke applied to medical school twice and was rejected both times. While trying to
find out why he was not accepted, he found out that his grades and test scores were higher than
some of the people that got in. He also found out that the program had 16 spots reserved for
disadvantaged people who were in minority groups; however, the rest of the 84 spots were
available to any race. Bakke, who was white, thought this system was unfair. He sued the
university on the grounds that he was rejected because of racial discrimination.
Issues:
Equal protection clause, 14th amendment
Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 4 in Bakke’s Favor
A close vote gave Bakke admission into medical school, overturning
the special admissions program. Four justices agreed with this decision
Justice Powell
saying "any racial quota system supported by government violates the Civil
Rights Act of 1964." The other four agreed that race could be a factor in determining who got in
to the school. Justice Powell wrote that "the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing
when applied to an individual and something else when applied to a person of color."
Concurring Opinion:
It was argued that the university’s policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, which says "no person in the United States shall,
on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance."
Dissenting Opinion:
The people who disagreed with the decision said that people of minority backgrounds are
disadvantaged from birth and hardly ever receive equal education so they should be given more
protection under the 14th amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected minority groups
and discrimination.
Sources:
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE.The Oyez Project at IIT ChicagoKent College of Law. 10 April 2014.
Lewis F. Powell, U.S. Supreme Court. N.d. The Free Dictionary. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Page 10
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
By: Cody Cochran
Background Information:
The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was argued on April 13, 1896. The decision was made on
May 18, 1896. Louisiana passed a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites.
The question was whether or not this law was constitutional or unconstitutional. Homer Adolph
Plessy, who was seven-eighths Caucasian, took a seat in one of the “whites only” cars of a
Louisiana train. When he refused to move to the car reserved for blacks, he was arrested.
Issue(s):
14th Amendment, Separate-but-equal belief
The question in this case was whether or not Louisiana law could mandate racial
segregation on its trains and whether it was an unconstitutional act on the privileges, immunities
and the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
7 to 1 in Ferguson’s favor
Henry B. Brown wrote the majority opinion. The majority upheld
racial segregation that was state-forced. The decision was based on
the “separate but equal” belief that separate facilities for whites and
blacks did satisfy the 14th Amendment, as long as they were treated
equal under the law. Justice Brown acknowledged that the 14th
Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for races before
the law.
Brown also noted that “in the nature of things it could have
not been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to
enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or
commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either.” (Oyez Par 4)
Homer Adolph Plessy
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from the majority opinion. His decision also had a major
impact in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Marshall argued that segregationist
legislation, like the law in this case, was based on the assumption that “colored citizens are so
inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white
citizens.”
Sources:
Homer Plessy. N.d. Photograph. Legal Solutions BlogWeb. 11 Apr 2014.
"Landmark Cases." Streetlaw. Street Law Inc. . Web. 11 Apr 2014.
PLESSY v. FERGUSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2014.
Page 11
Brown v. Board of Education
By: Jack Elliott
Background Information:
A young girl named Linda Brown wanted to attend a school that was very close to her
house, but the school was for white children only. Linda had to attend the school for blacks that
was farther from her house than the school for whites. The law stated segregation by race was
allowed in schools.
Issue(s):
Segregation in schools, 14th amendment
The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Question then became, does this take away
their privileges as citizens of the Unites States as stated in the 14th amendment? Should public
schools be segregated?
Supreme Court’s Decision:
9 to 0 in Brown’s favor
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that racial segregation
in schools can have long lasting effects on students because it makes
minority children feel inferior. In public schools, “separate but equal”
was found to be unequal. The Supreme Court voted unanimously for
Brown, causing separate but equal to not be allowed in public schools
and racial segregation in public schools to end.
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Concurring Opinion:
The court voted unanimously for Brown, allowing segregation in schools to be banned.
They believed it was a violation of the fourteenth amendment because all students should have
equal education opportunities.
Dissenting Opinion:
Due to all of the votes being in favor of Brown, there was no dissenting opinion.
Sources:
"BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (I)." Brown v. Board of Education (I). N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
"Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Was to Protect All Rights." Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Was to
Protect All Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
Photo of Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Earl Warren." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Page 12
By: Erin Bendig
The First Amendment
In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment guarantees 5 specific freedoms that an individual may
have. These rights include: freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom
of petition, and freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech means that you have the right to
criticize the government without the fear of being punished by law. Freedom of the press means
that you may publish anything as long as it is true. Freedom of religion means that the
government cannot establish a national government or prohibit the practice of any certain
religion. Freedom of petition means that people have to right to petition against decisions the
government makes and freedom of assembly means that people have the right to gather in public
or in private.
Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
In 1969, a group of students gathered to do something about their common opinion about the
Vietnam War. These students were not in favor of American troops going to fight, so in
awareness, they wore black armbands to school to express their protest. The school board met
and agreed that they would not tolerate the wearing of these armbands and sent the kids home.
Texas v. Johnson, 1989
A man named Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the president’s
administrative policies. He was convicted and sent to jail. In the Supreme Court, they ruled that
he has the right to burn an American flag because under the first amendment, he has the right to
do so.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
In a New York school, the board decided that they would recite a prayer before they started each
day. This violated the first amendment because they were establishing a religion which is
unconstitutional.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmier, 1988
In a Missouri school, the students were going to include an article in their school newspaper
about a sensitive topic related to the students. The principal did not allow them to publish the
story because it was inappropriate. Cathy Kuhlmier and two other students said that that was a
violation of their first amendment rights.
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986
Matthew Fraser was speaking at his high school assembly and included some sexual gestures and
metaphors. He was suspended from school because his speech interfered with the educational
process. The school has the power to say what is appropriate to say and what not to say, so this
was not a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech.
Page 13
Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
By: Bailey Boring
Background Information:
A group of adults and students in Des Moines wanted to publicize their opposition to the
American involvement in the war in Vietnam by wearing black armbands. The principles at Des
Moines schools decided that anyone doing this would be suspended until they appeared without
the armband. Mary Beth, Christopher, and John Tinker wore the armbands and were suspended
until the end of the protest.
Issue(s):
1st Amendment: Speech, Press, and Assembly
The argument became whether or not prohibition
against the wearing of armbands in public school was a
violation of students’ right to free speech guaranteed by
the 1st Amendment.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
7 to 2 in Tinker’s favor
The Supreme Court decided that the armbands represented
Warren Court (1967-1969)
pure speech, and were separate from the students’ conduct.
They also decided that students didn’t lose their right to free speech while on school property. In
order to justify the suppression of speech, school officials must be able to prove the conduct
would interfere with the operation of the school.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Potter Stewart stated that “children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First
Amendment rights.” Justice Byron R. White stated separately that “the majority’s opinion relies
on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.”
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Hugo L. Black argued that “the First Amendment does not provide the right to express
any opinion at any time.” Justice John M. Harlan argued separately that “school officials should
be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a
motivation other than a legitimate school interest.”
Sources:
Photo of the Warren Court, April 17, 2014
TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. The Oyez
Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. April 11, 2014.
Page 14
Texas vs. Johnson, 1989
By: Courtland Sample
Background Information
Gregory Johnson set fire to an American flag during a protest at the Republican National
Convention in Dallas, Texas. He led the protest against national polices. Johnson was arrested
for breaking Texas law which prohibits the desecration of the Texas and U.S. Flag and was
found guilty in court. The appeals court reversed the decision and the State took it to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the Texas law was unconstitutional because of its
limits on the right to “freedom of expression.”
Issue(s):
1st Amendment, Freedom of Expression
The problem with law was it limited the first amendment rights of
freedom of expression. The Texas law took these rights away when
they arrested Gregory Johnson. They found the law unconstitutional
violating the first amendments rights.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court 5-4 vote held that Johnson burning of the flag is
protected by the first amendment rights of expression. Johnson’s
actions were not prohibited by the amendment. He was expressing his
Gregory Johnson on the right
opinions on what he thought of the U.S. Supreme Court found just
because the public takes offense to the actions doesn’t mean he is prohibited to speak his mind.
The Supreme Court also designated that states don’t have the authority to tell what symbols are
prohibited to be desecrated.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Kennedy stated, “The respondent is not a philosopher and perhaps did not even possess
the ability to comprehend how repellent his statement must be to the Republic itself. Whether or
not he could appreciate the offense he gave the fact remains that his acts were speech, in both
technical and fundamental meaning of the Constitution.”
Dissenting Opinion
Chief Rehnquist said “But the court insists that the Texas statue prohibiting the public burning of
the American flag infringes on respondent Johnson’s freedom of expression. Such freedom, is
not absolute.”
Sources
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, < http://www..law.cornell.edu >
Photo of Johnson, 1989, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson>
“Texas vs. Johnson”, American Government:, New York: Glencoe, 2004.
Page 15
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
By: Katelyn Logan
Background Information:
In New York, parents of ten students in attendance of a public school in Long Island
began a petition that led to a trial to challenge the constitutionality of a nondenominational
prayer, which was approved by the New York State Board of Regents, being recited everyday
before school. The prayer reads as follows: “Almighty God; we acknowledge our dependence
upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” The
prayer recitation was offered to schools and was a voluntary exercise. The parents (Engel) stood
against the New York Board of Regents (Vitale) in a trial.
Issue(s):
1st amendment, Establishment Clause
The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” The question was asked if this nondenominational prayer
established a religion in a government funded public school. The First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from
establishing an official religion.
The majority noted that religion is very important in the majority
of American people, but the argument became is it fair for a religion to
be forced upon the minority.
Justice Hugo Black
Supreme Court’s Decision:
6 to 1 in Engel’s favor
The court decided that the prayer citation was ruled as unconstitutional and against the First
amendment Establishment Clause. The majority stated that the opportunity allowing students to
absence themselves from this prayer activity did not make the law constitutional because the
purpose of the first amendment is to prohibit government interference with religion. The majority
also mentioned how when the government was with involved religion wars and other destructive
events arose.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Douglas looked at the Establishment Clause from a broader perspective and argued hat
any type of public promotion of religion is against the Establishment Clause.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Stewart argued that the majority used the Establishment Clause out of context. He stated,
“I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to participate in
saying a prayer, say it.”
Sources:
ENGEL v. VITALE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10 April 2014.
John, Black. Justice Hugo Black. 2006. Photograph. n.p. Web. 11 Apr 2014.
Remy, Richard. United States Government, Engel v Vitale. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Print.
Page 16
Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, 1988
By: Sammi Lawrence
Background Information:
Two articles were written in Hazelwood East High School’s newspaper, “The Spectrum,”
were eliminated due to offensive topics. When the principal edited the school newspaper, he
believed that two articles were “inappropriate, personal, sensitive, and unsuitable topics for
student readers.” The articles were withheld from publications, Cathy Kuhlmeier and two
previous students of Hazelwood took the case to court.
Issue(s):
1st Amendment
Students believed that removing the articles were violating their constitutional right. They
thought they were deprived of their freedom of expression, of the first amendment. The school
board had agreed with the principal’s decision in removing the articles.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 3 Hazelwood’s favor
The Supreme Court decided that the principle’s decision was not violating
the student’s freedom of speech or expression. With it being a schoolsponsored newspaper, the principal had the authority to override any
decision that the students may or may not have made. The school may
censor student publications, as long as they have a reasonable excuse to edit
out certain articles.
Justice Byron White
Concurring Opinion:
The school reserves the right to remove any article, in a school sponsored newspaper. Justice
Byron White states that "A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student
speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or
'
conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order,'or to associate
the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy."
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissent believed that the majority failed to distinguish the difference between schoolinitiated and school-sponsored speech. They also believed that the precedent of the case, Tinker
v Des Moines, demonstrated how easily officials of the schools and courts can declare
“discrimination” as protection against sensitive topics.
Sources:
"HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER." Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. N.p., n.d.
Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
"Justice Byron White - Dissents from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and Their Progeny." Justice Byron White Dissents from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and Their Progeny. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Page 17
Texas v Johnson, 1989
By: Brady Allen
Background Information
During the 1984 Republican National Convention taking place in Dallas, Texas there was
a large protest in the city against the Reagan Administration. The people of this protest marched
through the city streets picketing and shouting anti-political chants against the president. When
the protest had reached the city hall of Dallas, one of the protesters (Johnson) took a flag that
was stolen from a local flagpole and set it on fire as a symbolic act of their protest. After many
witnesses were offended at the sight of burning the nation’s flag, Johnson
was arrested and charged under a Texas law that stated desecration of a
venerated object was illegal.
Issue(s):
Freedom of speech, 1st amendment
The first amendment to the US constitution states that congress shall
make no law that “abridges the freedom of speech”. In this case, Johnson
claimed that whenever he was arrested for desecrating a venerated object that
this first amendment right was infringed. The key part of deciding the
constitutional rights involved within the Johnson’s court case is
Justice Anthony Kennedy
distinguishing whether or not the rights of symbolic protests that are
offensive to society are valid as described by the constitution.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 4 in Johnson’s favor
The court decided that Johnson’s symbolic act of protest of burning the American flag was
indeed protected by the first amendment. The court felt that Johnson’s behavior was expressive
conduct and was only of a distinctive political nature. The justices of the court also upheld to the
idea that just because an expression of protest may be offensive or disagreeable does not mean
that the government has the right to place punishment on it.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the justices who were at first in opposition to Johnson’s case,
later voted in favor of him stating that sometimes one must vote in favor of something that they
do not believe in because the constitution supports the issue.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Kennedy stated, “The national flag is honored with “almost mystical reverence” by
millions of Americans and desecration of that symbol should be punished”.
Sources:
William A. McClenaghan. Maglunder’s American Government. Englewood, New Jersey: Practice Hall, 1993
TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 April 2014.
Photo of Justice Anthony Kennedy, August 30, 2010, web.
Page 18
Bethel School District vs. Frasier, 1986
By: Kevin Lu
Background Information:
A student was giving a sexually suggestive speech during an assembly. The administration had
punished him after the assembly but the student had argued that the school rules were limiting
his 1st amendment rights. The student then took it up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Issue(s):
Freedom of speech, 1st amendment
The student thought that the school rules were a violation of his 1st amendment
rights because they limited his freedom of speech. The problem wasn’t the
restriction of the student’s 1st amendment but how he approached it during the
speech. The student even said that he did it on purpose.
Supreme Court Decision:
7 to 2 in Bethel school’s favor.
The court decided that the school having rules against certain words or phrases
were not in violation to the 1st amendment. They also said that schools are not
prohibited to prohibit such language on school grounds.
Justice Brennan
Concurring Opinion:
Almost everyone was in favor of Bethel School because the school’s job is to teach students
“habits and manners of civility.” their job is to also teach students how to behave in the real
world and have a civil attitude.
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting opinion is strange because the people that voted against Bethel School had agreed
with the base idea of how the school wasn’t breaking the 1st amendment. They think that it was
the school’s fault because they didn’t teach the students what type of language was disruptive
and what wasn’t.
Sources:
McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder'
s American Government. Needham, MA:
Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
Remy, Richard C. United States Government: Democracy in Action. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
"FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Photo of Justice Brennan, April 17, 2014, web.
Page 19
By: Price Harper
Rights of the Accused
The cases that deal with the rights of the accused involve the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.
The 4th amendment is states that in order for police or officials to search you or your possessions
they must have a probable cause and a warrant. The 5th amendment involves, due process of law,
No double jeopardy, be trialed twice for the same exact crime, eminent domain, government can
take your property for public use but they must pay you for it, and you must be charged with a
crime before you are arrested. The 6th amendment deals with due process of law, like the right to
an attorney, a jury trial, and witnesses. The 14th amendment has to do with your rights as a
citizen, such as the government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Gideon vs Wainwright has to do with an old man, Clarence Gideon, who was convicted of
robbing a pool hall of some alcohol and some change from machines. He was given an unfair
trial because he was poor and could not afford a lawyer, and when he requested a lawyer he was
refused to be given one by the judge, and was given a retrial by the Supreme Court and they
overturned his case.
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
A man named, Ernest Miranda was arrested for raping a girl in the desert. He was found guilty in
trial but he argued that they never told him of his rights before he was arrested so he did not
know his rights. Because of this today you must be read your rights before you are arrested and
convicted of a crime. Today these rights are called Miranda Warnings, and some of them are,
right to council, right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be held against you in
court.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Ms.Dollree Mapp, a lady living in Ohio, was illegally searched by police officers because they
had no warrant they just decided to search her home, they found some illegal substances in her
house and arrested her based on what they illegally found. The case was overturned because the
police violated the 4th amendment because they searched Ms. Mapp’s home without a probable
cause and a search warrant.
Page 20
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
By: Izaiah Reynolds
Background Information
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Bay Harbor, Florida, by the police in June of 1961.
He was accused of breaking, and entering in to the local pool hall, which is a misdemeanor.
During the trial Mr. Gideon asked for a lawyer, but the judge said that he had no special needs
for him to be appointed an attorney. Mr. Gideon felt that it was unfair to be tried in court without
a lawyer. The judges at the time didn’t consider being poor, or not being
able to afford a lawyer reason to be a special case. Now today because of
this case everyone has the right to an attorney.
Issue(s):
Right to Council, 14th amendment
The 14th amendment’s due process clause should be interpreted to
include within its meaning the guarantee of rights to council in all
criminal cases. No state can deprive you of a fair and speedy trial,
without due process of law. The Supreme Court had an obligation by the
constitution to protect people’s life, liberty, and property, so they
couldn’t just deny your rights like in the Betts v. Brady case.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
9 to 0 in against Gideon’s favor
The court decided that the right to council could be inferred from the Fifth, and the
Fourteenth amendment. They also determined that the because of the elastic clause they could
stretch the right to council even though it wasn’t stated in the Constitution. They ruled that from
the time a person has been accused of a crime until the time the trial is over, the accused has the
right to an attorney.
Concurring Opinion
Justice William O. Douglas stated that whenever a jail sentence is a possible punishment
even for a misdemeanor, and petty offenses the accused has the right to a lawyer from the time of
arrest through the appeal process.
Sources:
GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2014
Remy, Richard. United States Government. New York 1998. Print. Pg. 527
Page 21
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
By: Ashlynn Holton
Background Information:
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted of raping and kidnapping an 18-year-old
woman. After being selected by her in a lineup, he was questioned for two hours by the police.
Eventually he confessed, unaware that he could remain silent and have a lawyer.
Issues:
5th amendment, 6th amendment
Self-incrimination is testifying against oneself. It is also called “The right to remain
silent.” This right is protected by the 5th amendment. You are able to take this while being
arrested.
The 6th amendment states that everybody has the right to a fair and
speedy trial. This gives everybody the right to a lawyer, and if you cannot
afford one you may ask the judge to appoint one to you.
Chief
Justice Earl Warren
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 4 in Miranda’s favor
The court decided that because he was unaware of his rights, what Miranda
said may not be used against him. They decided that since the 5th amendment
states that he has the right to remain silent, he did not have to testify against
himself. Since he was unaware he could have a lawyer, they also brought this into consideration
with the 6th amendment. Because of this, The Miranda Warnings came into affect.
Concurring Opinion:
Judge Earl Warren decided that what Miranda said may not be used in court due to not having
knowledge of his rights.
Dissenting Opinion:
Miranda should have been found guilty due to him confessing to committing the crime.
Sources:
Earl Warren.jpg. 2008. Wikipedia, n.p. Ed. Wikipedia.
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2014.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759>.
Remy, Richard C., and Gordon P. Whitaker. Civic Today Citizenship, Economics, & You. New York, NY:
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print. Page 438.Remy,
Richard C. United States Government: Democracy in Action. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Page 205, 206.
Page 22
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
By: Bria Lindsay
Background Information:
In 1965, Dollree Mapp was searched by policemen without a legal search warrant. The
police said they had found sexual material. When she went to court she said that the 4th
Amendment protects her from being searched without probable cause. Since she was guilty of
having the sexual material she was sent to prison.
Issue(s):
Search and Seizure, 4th Amendment
The 4th Amendment says that anyone’s personal items can not be
searched or used as evidence against you unless there is a probable
cause or they have a legal search warrant. The policemen who did
knew that they didn’t have permission to search Mapp’s house and
knew that the warrant wasn’t real. Some did argue if the Exclusionary
Rule had part to do with the search then it was illegal. The
Exclusionary Rule says that evidence obtained illegally cannot be
used against you in a court case because that goes against the
Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 3 in Mapp’s favor
Justice Clark
The Supreme Court did overrule the case because the same issue had occurred in previous cases
and also use the Exclusionary Rule. The reason why they changed their minds was because it
violated the 4th Amendment, and as before stated in the Exclusionary Rule which had a huge part
in why it was overruled. Since they did overrule the case it now gives everyone the right to not
be searched without a legal search warrant or a probable cause.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Clark agrees because of the Exclusionary Rule and was an illegal search because the
material obtained at her house was taken and used against her illegally in court.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Harlan disagrees with the decision because he says Mapp was under Ohio law and he also
says that they ignored the judicial restraint and that the Exclusionary Rule didn’t have an effect
in the case.
Sources:
Photo of Justice Clark, April 14, 2014
MAPP V. OHIO The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of law. “Mapp v. Ohio”. April
14, 2014
McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder'
s American Government. Needham, MA:
Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print. Pg. 767
Page 23
Rights of the Accused
By: Isabella Bedoya
As outlined and stated in various amendments of the constitution, any one person who is
convicted of a crime or violation of the law has, regardless of their punishment, certain rights to
protect them from actions that can be taken against them. It is primarily the 5th, 6th, and 7th
amendments that outline these rights of the accused; however, there are some cases in which
other factors come into play, such as the right to equal protection under the law that states that all
citizens should be treated equally, or the 8th amendment that protects a person from receiving
cruel and unusual punishment. In the following cases, different variations of the rights of the
accused will be argued, in which cases the decision that is made will leave a precedent and a
basis to solve many other similar cases that could arise in the future.
Furman v. Georgia, 1967
In Furman v. Georgia, Furman accidentally killed the resident of a house he was burglarizing and
was convicted of murder. His punishment was to be sentenced to death, and this gave rise to the
argument that the measures taken were cruel and unusual, since the murder had taken place by
accident. After a debate in court, it was decided that the death penalty in cases such as Furman’s
was definitely considered too extreme and thus violated the 8th amendment.
Gregg v. Georgia, 1976
Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder and received the death penalty as his
consequence. It was argued that this punishment violated the eight and fourteenth amendments,
one for being cruel and unusual, and also because his skin color was, according to him, a
determining factor for his conviction and charges. It was decided that in this case, capital
punishment was not cruel and unusual and did not violate his rights of being treated equally since
he had deliberately killed the victim.
New Jersey v. TLO, 1985
TLO, a high school student, was searched due to the suspicion of her carrying cigarettes in her
purse. It was found that not only was this true, but she also possessed marijuana and a list of
people that owed her for sales. She was sentenced to probation, and the argument arose with the
claim that the exclusionary act, which states that evidence gained by illegal means cannot be
used for conviction, should be applied to schools. It was however, decided that it should not be
used in high school curriculum since students were under the care of school officials and they
had the right to do whatever was necessary to keep them safe.
Page 24
Furman v. Georgia, 1972
By: Babatunde Fakayode
Background Information:
William Henry Furman was sighted by a family member of the house he was
burglarizing. He tripped and fell and in doing so, the gun he carried went off and killed a resident
of that home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Issue(s):
Death Penalty, 8th Amendment
The main point of the 8th amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In the case of Furman v
Georgia, questions concerning the death penalty in race by state courts were raised. Most of the
people convicted of the death penalty were African American, poor, or both.
Furman claimed he couldn’t be convicted of the death penalty since it violates the 8th
amendment right of the constitution which states that no cruel or unusual punishment should be
inflicted.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 4 in Furman’s favor
The Supreme Court decided that William Henry Furman was not to be convicted of the
death penalty. The court ruled this way because the death penalty offends the cruel and unusual
punishment clause of the 8th amendment. The death penalty then set the precedent that states will
change their laws in order to solve the problems prescribed in
Furman v. Georgia.
Concurring Opinion:
Mr. Justice Douglas believes that the death penalty is not cruel,
unless the manner of execution can be said to be inhuman and
barbarous. He also stated that cruel and unusual punishment “Is not
fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion
becomes enlightened by a humane justice.”
Dissenting Opinion:
Mr. Justice Blackmun believes that the death penalty is not a good punishment to give and he
states that “distaster is buttressed by a belief that capital punishment serves no useful purpose
that can be demonstrated.”
Sources:
FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2014.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003>.
McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham, Massachusetts: Prentice hall, 1993. Print
April 17, 2014.
Photo of Judge Douglas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Justice_William_O_Douglas.jpg.
Page 25
Gregg v. Georgia, 1976
By: Jonathan Card
Background Information:
Gregg was found guilty of murder and armed robbery by the jury in Georgia. He was able
to get his court case appealed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The court declared the death
sentenced, but Gregg decided to challenge this ruling, claiming that his sentence was a “cruel
and unusual” punishment and that it violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue(s):
Cruel and unusual punishment, 8th amendment
The 8th amendment states that no one should be punished
unfairly or by extreme means. The issue lied in whether or not the
death penalty was constitutional or unconstitutional and if it
violated the 8th amendment in this case.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
7 to 2 in Georgia’s favor
The court ruled that the death penalty was not considered
cruel and unusual punishment, under the right circumstances, and
thus it was constitutional.
Justice John Paul Stevens
Concurring Opinion:
Mr. Justice White believed that the death penalty should not be a power imposed in the
constitution for the government since it could be discriminatory at times and mistakes could be
made.
Dissenting Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brennan does not understand that the Court disagrees that, “In comparison to
all other punishments today… the deliberate extinguishment of human life by the state is
uniquely degrading to human dignity”, if “less severe punishment can adequately achieve the
same purposes invalidates the punishment”.
Sources:
Photo of Judge John Paul Stevens, October 2, 2006,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Paul_Stevens,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg>.
McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham: Prentice Hall, 1993. Print: April 17, 2014.
US Supreme Court Media. “Gregg v. Georgia”. Oyez. Web. 13 April 2014.
Thomas G. Walker. “Gregg v. Georgia”. CqPress. Sage. Web. 13 April 2014.
Page 26
New Jersey vs. TLO, 1985
By: Yadira Dorantes
Background information:
In a New Jersey high school a vice-principal found two girls smoking cigarettes in a
girl’s bathroom. One of them (TLO) admitted to have been smoking and with suspicion the
school searched her items finding cigarettes and marijuana.
Issue(s):
Search and seizure in schools, 4th amendment
There had already been a few limitations or extensions to
the 4th amendment in other cases (Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961) talking
about the need of a warrant to search a home. In this case however,
they were concerned with whether or not the fourth amendment
applied to schools.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
6 to 3 in the New Jersey’s favor
Justice Byron White wrote the Court opinion. It stated that the rights of children and adolescents
are different than adults since the school officials are responsible for the students and discipline
needed for education. In a school, a search could be done without probable cause, as long as it is
by reasonable suspicion.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Powell stated that he agreed with the courts decision but “would place greater emphasis
on the special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools that make it unnecessary to
afford students the same constitutional protections granted adults and juveniles in a no school
setting…”
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent saying that New Jersey chose to not include the 4th
amendment in their petition.
Sources:
"Byron White." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.Web. 22 April, 2014.
Cornell Law school "New Jersey v. T.L.O.."Legal Information Institute.” 1992 .17 April, 2014
“New Jersey v. TLO (1985)” infoplease. Pearson Education, Inc. 2005 web. 13 April, 2015.
US Supreme Court Media. “New Jersey v. TLO.” Oyez. Web. 13 April, 2014
Page 27
By: Jack Beck
Rights of the Accused
In all of the Rights of the Accused cases the defendants each believe they have a right that is
stated in the constitution. All of them are accused of something and they think that one of their
rights has been taken. They each fight for their liberties in court and try to prove that have been
stripped of their rights.
Furman vs. Georgia, 1972
This case was about a man named William Henry Furman. He was charged with murder after he
got caught robbing somebodies house. He said under oath that he didn’t mean to fire his gun and
kill the man. Even though the police said that when he was leaving the scene he fired a shot at
them. Furman was charged with the death penalty but it never got carried out.
Gregg. vs. Georgia, 1973
This case was a follow up of the Furman vs Georgia case. It was about a man named Troy Leon
Gregg. who was the first man to be sentenced the death penalty and it be passed by the Supreme
Court. When he was on death row he began to think that the death penalty is against the 8th and
14th amendment and this began the case. The verdict at the end was with the State of Georgia.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O, 1985
This case is about a 14 year old girl that was caught in the bathroom smoking cigarettes. The
teacher that caught her searched her backpack and found many more illegal things and then the
teacher notified her parents and the police. The young girl said that this is a violation of the 4th
amendment. The Supreme Court took this case and ended up agreeing with New Jersey.
Page 28
Furman v. Georgia
By: Jacob Hallenbeck
Background information:
In the case Furman v. Georgia, Furman was caught burglarizing a house while he was
fleeing the scene he tripped and fell dropping his weapon. As the weapon hit the floor it
discharged and the projectile hit a resident of the building killing them. Furman was charged
with murder and given the death penalty.
Issue:
Cruel and unusual punishment, 8th amendment
The 8th amendment states that “nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted.” The question that was
being asked was, whether or not the death penalty was a
cruel and unusual punishment to have administered. And
the court was also worried that the death penalty was not
being administered properly and racial status was affecting
the way it was given.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
5 to 4 in Furman’s favor.
Justice Harry
The court decided that the death penalty was being imposed
Blackmun
unfairly in a number of cases on the
pretense that the penalty was being imposed on the bases of the persons race and was therefore
attacking the persons right to not have any unfair or cruel punishment but the death penalty was
still allowed to be imposed as long as there was no racial biased in the decision to give this
punishment
Concurring opinion:
“It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual"
if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or
if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices” states Mr
Justice Douglas
Dissenting opinion:
“Cases such as these provide for me an excruciating agony of the spirit. I yield to no one in the
depth of my distaste, antipathy, and, indeed, abhorrence, for the death penalty, with all its aspects
of physical distress and fear and of moral judgment exercised by finite minds.” Mr Justice
Blackmun
Sources:
FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 April 2014.
"Law Library - American Law and Legal Information." - JRank Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr.
2014
Page 29
Gregg v. Georgia, 1976
By: Spencer Messick
Background Information:
A man named Gregg was charged for killing a man and stealing his car. Later on they were
found in the stolen vehicle in North Carolina but the man had the same exact weapon in his
pocket that was used to kill the man but he claimed that he shot the man in self-defense.
Issue(s):
Capital punishment, 8th amendment
The issue with this Supreme Court case is that Gregg had killed a man and stole his car so
he was sentenced to the death penalty. But he found that unconstitutional and that it violated the
8th amendment which was cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Georgia thought the death
penalty was a reasonable punishment for the crime that he
committed.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
7 to 2 in the state of Georgia’s favor
The courts final decision was that he will receive the death penalty
for the crime that he committed. The court said, “Capital
Punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage … It is an
extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes.” The
court case was not overruled, clarified, or changed even though
Gregg had tried his hardest to change the decision. The precedent
for this case was Furman v. Georgia, 1972.
Concurring Opinion:
The concurring opinion was that Gregg definitely deserved the
death penalty for the crime that he had committed.
Justice William Brennan
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting opinion was that he should not get the death penalty because they thought that it
violated the 8th amendment.
Sources:
"Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder'
s American Government.
Needham, MA: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
"What'
s New." DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Page 30
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
By: Jackson Scott
Background Information:
A girl with the initials T.L.O. and another girl were caught smoking a Cigarette in the bathroom
at school by a teacher. They were taken to the Principal’s office and one girl confessed to
smoking. T.L.O stayed with her story and said she was not smoking so the Vice Principal
searched her purse. He found Cigarette papers, marijuana, and a pipe. The Vice Principal notified
the police and her parents.
Issue(s):
Exclusionary Rule, 4th Amendment
The problem in this case was that the girl
said they searched her purse illegally and it violated
her 4th Amendment. Another issue was that the
school thought they had reasonable suspicion to
search her backpack.
Supreme Court Decision:
6 to 3 in New Jerseys favor
The court decided that schools have reasonable
suspicion to searches and seizures because students
are in their care.
Justice John Paul Stevens
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor agreed with what the court said but, they think different
levels of education should have different protection from searches and seizures.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice John Paul Stevens thought it wasn’t the Supreme Courts main concern to look at a
violation of the 4th Amendment. He also thought the Supreme Court didn’t have enough
knowledge for the case.
Sources:
"Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
"New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)." Infoplease. © 2000–2014 Pearson Education, n.d. Web.
<http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar24.html>.
Page 31
1.
2.
3.
Vocabulary
Checks and Balances Chart
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Page 32
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 33
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 34
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 35
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 36
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 37
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 38
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 39