Court Case Blurbs - Tredyffrin/Easttown School District ...



Court Case Blurbs

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Facts of the Case 

In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)

Facts of the Case 

At the age of 15 years Thompson was tried as an adult, convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. v Virginia (1996)

Facts of the Case 

The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Facts of the Case 

In 1965, John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War. Their fathers sued, but the District Court ruled that the school had not violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, and the Tinkers appealed to the Supreme Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000)

Facts of the Case 

Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. fired several shots into the home of an African- American family. While in custody, Apprendi made a statement, which he later retracted, that he did not want the family in his neighborhood because of their race. Apprendi was charged under New Jersey law with second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, which carries a prison term of 5 to 10 years. The count did not refer to the state's hate crime statute, which provides for an enhanced sentence if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of race. After Apprendi pleaded guilty, the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the shooting was racially motivated and sentenced Apprendi to a 12-year term on the firearms count. In upholding the sentence, the appeals court rejected Apprendi's claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court affirmed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miranda v. Arizona (1965)

Facts of the Case 

The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shelton v. Tucker (1960)

Facts of the Case 

This case held unconstitutional an Arkansas statute which required every teacher, as a condition to employment in a state-supported school or college, to file annually an affidavit listing without limitation every organization to which he has belonged or regularly contributed within the preceding five years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schenk v. U.S. (1919)

Facts of the Case 

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ward v. Rock against Racism, 1989

Facts of the Case

Respondent Rock Against Racism (RAR), furnishing its own sound equipment and technicians, has sponsored yearly programs of rock music at the Naumberg Acoustic Bandshell in New York City's Central Park. The city received numerous complaints about excessive noise at RAR's concerts from users of the nearby Sheep Meadow, an area designated by the city for passive recreation, from other users of the park, and from residents of areas adjacent to the park. Rejecting various other solutions to the excessive noise and inadequate amplification problems, the city adopted a Use Guideline for the bandshell which specified that the city would furnish high quality sound equipment and retain an independent, experienced sound technician for all performances. After the city implemented this guideline, RAR amended a preexisting District Court complaint against the city to seek damages and a declaratory judgment striking down the guideline as facially invalid under the First Amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 1984

Facts of the Case

In 1982, the National Park Service issued a permit to respondent Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall, which are National Parks in the heart of Washington, D.C. The purpose of the demonstration was to call attention to the plight of the homeless, and the permit authorized the erection of two symbolic tent cities. However, the Park Service, relying on its regulations -- particularly one that permits "camping" (defined as including sleeping activities) only in designated campgrounds, no campgrounds having ever been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall -- denied CCNV's request that demonstrators be permitted to sleep in the symbolic tents. CCNV and the individual respondents then filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that application of the regulations to prevent sleeping in the tents violated the First Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philadelphia v. State of New Jersey, 1978

Facts of the Case

New Jersey statute (ch. 363) that prohibits the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State . . ." held to violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Pp. 621-629.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. v. Nixon, 1974

Facts of the Case

The special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal subpoenaed tape recordings made of President Nixon (the “President”) discussing the scandal with some of his advisers. The President claimed executive privilege as his basis for refusing to turn over the tapes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oregon v. Mitchell, 1970

Facts of the Case

Congress had passed an act requiring all states to register citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 as voters. Oregon did not desire to lower its voting age to 18, and filed suit on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found largely for Oregon, in that it found that while Congress could set requirements for voting in federal elections that it did not have the power to set the voting age for state elections.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

Facts of the Case

Plessy (P) attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car. After refusing to sit in the black railway carriage car, Plessy was arrested for violating an 1890 Louisiana statute that provided for segregated “separate but equal” railroad accommodations. Those using facilities not designated for their race were criminally liable under the statute.

At trial with Justice John H. Ferguson (D) presiding, Plessy was found guilty on the grounds that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police powers based upon custom, usage, and tradition in the state. Plessy filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Supreme Court of Louisiana against Ferguson, asserting that segregation stigmatized blacks and stamped them with a badge of inferiority in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967

Facts of the Case

case in which the Court held that citizens of the United States cannot be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Flood v. Kuhn, 1972

Facts of the Case

  Curt Flood was sick of getting traded from team to team. He even refused to sign with the Philadelphia Phillies, which is how the Flood vs. Kuhn case was brought about. In 1969, on Christmas Eve, Curt Flood wrote a letter to Bowie Kuhn demanding to become a free agent. Flood stated, "After twelve years in the Major Leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective to my wishes."  Flood believed that he had the right to consider other offers from other clubs before making a decision. Bowie Kuhn replied five days later, agreeing with Flood that as Human Beings, we are not property to be bought or sold. However, Bowie Kuhn denied Flood of his request. Flood took Bowie Kuhn to court

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Texas v. Johnson, 1989

Facts of the Case

After publicly burning the American flag, the Defendant, Gregory Lee Johnson (Defendant), was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. The Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954

Facts of the Case

Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

Very Important Research Information!!!!

1) Please use as a basic resource to start your exploration!

2) (Very good site to use)

3)

4)

5)

6)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules of the Research Process

A) DO NOT print directly from any Web pages! You must read you research material on the computer screen and then decide which parts you would like to use.

B) Please copy and paste your research text from your Web sites into ONE Word Document. Make sure you show from what site each piece of your research comes!

C) Remember that you must show Active Reading annotations and highlighting on your research document and have used TWO different research sources.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download