5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- US v. O'Brien
- New Jersey v. TLO
- Tinker v. DesMoines
- Brown v. Board of Education
- a Year: 1983
Location: Piscataway High School
Background: An 14 year old was being accused for smoking in the girl bathroom in her high school. The principal at the school started to question her and the looked in her purse. They found a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.
Question: Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court say that this was not violating the the Constitution at all because she was in school and presence of rolling paper in the purse made her more suspicious. This lead into searching the purse even more.
- b Year: 1895
Location: Former Louisiana State Capitol Building
Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision: 7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote(s) against
Outcome: The outcome would that the state law is within the constitutional boundaries.
- c Year: 1967
Location: South Boston Court
Background: David O'Brien burned his draft card at the Boston Courthouse. David believe that we was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of draft card a crime.
Question: Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech?
Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court stated that this was this was not made in private and that it was in front the of a crowd of people. Indicating this is not expressing, but provoking a negative message. Plus this was on the Boston Courthouse, on a private property.
- d Year: 1952
Location: Board of Education
Background: African Americans were being deny by accessing to the Caucasian school because of the segregation laws.The students were brought the issue to court by stating the Fourteenth amendment.
Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Outcome: The justices have voted for Brown stating that segregating students in school would not being treating the students equally through the fourteenth amendment. The case was being overruled that it would be "Separate but equal" clause.
- e Year: 1968
Location: Des Monies Independent Community School District
Background: John Tinker, 15 year old, his sister Mary beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war just like their parents. This was during the Christmas holiday and the principals of Des Monies school district was fearing that it would cause or provoke disturbances. The principals soon ask them to remove the armbands or they have to face suspension. The children refuse to remove the armbands, they were suspended until New Year's Day.
Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
Decision: 7 votes for Tinker, 2 votes against
Outcome: The supreme court have decided that by wearing the armbands it was "closely akin to 'pure speech" and that was protected by the First Amendment. This proves that the principle had fail to show that the student had cause some sort of disruption or chaos in the school environment.
5 Multiple choice questions
- Year: 2002
Background: Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O'Mara were convicted separately for violating a Virginia stature. This would make it a felony because they were cross burning and this would also intimidating people and other groups. He was found guilty.
Question: Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?
Decision: 7 votes for Virginia, 2 vote(s) against
Outcome: The outcome was that there were 7 votes for Virginia because there was a rule stated that there should be no burning on any type of properties beside your own. This would cause a type of thereat to other people. There were judges that disagree that this was unconstitutional.
- Year: 1988
Location: Dallas City Hall
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall in 1984. Johnson was convicted under a Texas outlawing flag desecration. He was sentence to year for a year, plus a 2,000 dollars fine. After the Texas Court of criminal Appeals was granted, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Question: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
Outcome: Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression of the First Amendment. The court have found that Johnson's actions is just an expressive way, plus a distinctively political nature. The reason why Government may not disapprove because usually its this people why of looking at the act. They may feel it offensive or disagreeable, so they would speak against it.
- Year: 1918
Location: Socialist headquarters
Background: Schenck mailed circulars to draftee, suggesting that the draft was wrong and that we should deal it with peace. This was during the World War I and Schench was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to ruin the recruitment.
Question: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court have stated Schenck will not be protected in this situation. This was some how endangering the national safety because it was during wartime and congress have the right to punish.
- Year: 2001
Location: York County Court
Background: Daryl Renard was convicted for abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. During the trial they have a doctor stating that he was mentally retarded. The jury soon have sentence the man to death. Soon the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing. Soon the trial he can not be sentence to death because we was mentally ill.
Question: Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
Decision: 6 votes for Atkins, 3 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court have decided that it would be cruel and unusual punishments to sentence a man who is mentally ill. He was defend by the Eighth Amendment.
- Year: 1968
Background: Brandenburg, a leader of the KKK had made a speech tying to provoke some sort of violence. The Ohio had convicted the leader under criminal syndicalism law. This law prevent anyone from making plans of sabotage other people or causing any type of harms.
Question: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Decision: 8 votes for Brandenburg, 0 vote(s) against
Outcome: Brandenburg have stated that this was preventing him from freedom of speech, but the court use a two-pronged test to look over the speech. The speech did not pass and that he was violating the law.
5 True/False questions
Abington v. Schempp → Year: 1961
Location: New Hyde Park-Garden City Park School District
Background: This school have an voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was promoting a type of religion and school is not suppose to promote any type of religion.
Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) agains
Outcome: The court have decided that even if its voluntary can save it from being unconstitutional. By accepting the prayer, this would lead that New York officially approved religion.
McDonald v. Chicago → Year: 1906
Location: Mapp's Residence
Background: Mapp's home was being search for a fugitive. This then got them seeing some obscene materials and Mapp was being arrested for a different reason. He soon appealed in court for the First Amendment freedom of expression.
Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court did not look heavy on the First Amendment , but that the declare that all evidence that is obtain was a violation of the Constitution. The decision launched that the court was having trouble of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier → Year: 1970
Location: Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania
Background: In Pennsylvania they have been funding non-public schools. These school are all church related.
Question: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?
Decision: 8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court state that we can not fund any type of church like school, they are private for a reason. They would have there own money, not by the government. The government is not promoting any type of religion.
McCulloch v. Maryland → Year: 1965
Location: Maricopa County Jail
Background: There were three cases when when citizens were arrested without knowing about it. They was causing self-incriminating themselves, while not knowing anything about the outside world.
Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court have stated that they do agree that without any notice or warrant they can not take someone away. Also the court have include a warning of the right to remain silent and also the right to have counsel present during interrogations.
Roper v. Simmons → Year: 2004
Location: Meramec River
Background: This case stated when there were a juvenile breaking into a house and end up killing a young women. He soon end up confessing and was sentence to life in prison, but the state really wanted to sentence him to a death penalty.
Question: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment?
Decision: 5 votes for Simmons, 4 vote(s) against
Outcome: Yes the court have decided that by giving a minor a death penalty would be a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore violating the Eight Amendment.