Yahoo

Reynold v US (Polygamy)

Reynold argued that having more than one wife was apart of his religion. The court stated that his ruling was constitutional as marrige is "Usually regulated by law.

Wisconsin v Yoder - school & religion

Yoder pulled his son out of school as he was of Amish background and going to school after 8th grade was against. Court stated that free exercise of religion out weighed the states interest in school.

Engel v Vitale - Prayer in school

New York State Board of Regents started praying over the speakers before school. Organizations tested it saying it violated the establishment clause.

The school lost as prayer before school was considered as a sponsored religeon.

Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v Newdow - Under God

A students parent stated that saying "under God" in the pledge of allegence was a violation of the 1st amendment
The parent did not have sufficient custody of his daughter so the father did not have standing in the case

Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe - student led school prayer

A student would lead a prayer over the speakers before every game and the prayer was overtly christian.
Supreme Court ruled that a school policy of beginning football games with a prayer led by a nominated student body representative violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Kennedy v Bremerton School District-Coach prayer

A high school coach would pray after and during his games and the school asked for him to stop. Due to it being him starting it by himself (Students joining on their own), the court ruled in his favor. The School was restricting his 1st amendment rights

Employment Division DoH Oregon v Smith-drugs

Two counselors took a powerful hallucinogen at a drug rehab place. After they were fired they applied for unemployment and where denied.The drugs they took were illegal in Oregon but at the same time the drug was apart of their religion. The court found that the DOHR was in the right as stating that a drug is for religion, anything could be apart of a religion.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Limits to religion

A gay couple came into a cake shop asking for for a cake and the cake maker denied the couple as he was a devout Christian. The Court concluded that the Commission's actions violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to use hostility toward religion or a religious viewpoint as a basis for laws or regulations

Tinker v Des Moines - students protesting Vietnam

Students Planned on wearing a black arm band to protest the war in Vietnam. The students won their case as they werent causing a distraction nor panic. They were using their proper 1st amendment rights

Morse v Frederick - Bong Hits 4 Jesus

At a school event a student pulled out a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus"at a school supervised event. He was suspended and had his banner taken away. The student argued that it was his free speech right to say that. The court ruled in favor of the Teacher as the student was promoting illegal substances and the students right dd not extend to promotion of illegal substances.

Mahanoy Area Schools v B.L. - “F” the Cheerleading team

B.L Didnt make it to varsity and proceeded to say a line of vulgarities about her school at her home. The school determined that She had broken the schools rules and she was removed by the school. The court Ruled in favor of the student and they declaired that it was a violation of the 1st amendment.

NY Times Co v Sullivan

NY Times posted an add defending MLK jr. The Ad was slightly incorrect, and The commisioner Sullivan believed that the ad was affecting him. The court ruled in favor of the NY times as the ad was not considered "actual mallace"

New York times Co v United States

The NY times released a set of papers called the pentagon papers about the current activities in Vietnam. The case was ruled in the favor of NY times as The printing of the papers would not cause immediate harm to those in 'nam. Not only that, if it was taken down it would be considered a attack on their 1st amendment rights.

Frisbe v Schultz

Schultz and Braun disagreed about abortion and got many people to picket a local doctor at his house.The city of Brooksfield ran a law about picketing in residential neighborhood. Schultz claimed that the law violated the 1st amendment. The court ruled in favor of the city as it had a proper reason for protecting the homes of the people.

DC v Heller

Heller was a police officer who wanted to keep a gun at home. If he was to keep the weapon it had to be non functioning. The court sided with heller as it was taking away his second amendment right.

NY State Rifle & Pistol Inc v Bruen

Bruen argued that needing a "special need" for self defence on a concealed carry violated the 2nd amendment.
"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

Mapp v Ohio - police entering a home

Mapp was caught with obscene materials within her house after the police illegally searched her home for a fugitive. The court ruled in favor of Mapp
Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

Terry v Ohio - Seems suspicious

Terry was observed by a officer in plain clothes. The officer found weapons on him and he was sentence for three year as they believed he was casing a stick-up.
The court ruled that the officer was in the right as he has reasonable suspicion. (4th amendment)

TLO v New Jersey - searching students

A student was suspected of having cigarettes in her purse and when they searched her bag they saw a list with students names on it, cigarettes, and weed. The court sided with The school as the search was reasonable.

Miranda v Arizona - knowing rights

Miranda was arrested for connection to a kidnapping and rape. After he was interrogated for 2 hours he signed a confession. The defence attorny revealed that the officers did not advise him on his right to an attorny. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.

Salinas v Texas - Am I detained?

Salina was interviewed about a murder and He became silent after they talked about gun casings. He was not read his miranda rights and was charged with murder. The court sided with texas as he did not say he was using the "right to remain silent" He just shut up.

Kelo v New London

New london seized propertiy from a woman for the sake of making jobs and selling to private investors.The property owner argued that it was her home and it wasnt public use if it was sold to a private company. The court sided with the town as selling land for private development is technically for public use.r

Witherspoon v Illinois

Witherspoon was arrested for murder and sent to death. He argued that The jury was imparcial because of "jurors who might have any objection to the death penalty gave too much bias in favor of the prosecution." He argued that IT did not count as an "impartial jury"

The jury was in favor of Witherspoon as they dissmissed anyone who went against the death penity.

Gideon v Wainwright

Gideon was arrested for felony breaking and entering. When in court he saked for a laywer and was denied one. He had to represent himself in court and was sentenced to 5 years. The court ruled in favor for Gideon as the sixth amendments guarantee to counsel would still apply to gideon under the 14th amendment.

Holloway v Arkansas

Three guys robbed a restaurant and two of the three raped a worker. The three of them were represented by one man. They wanted council for each individual one. They were all charged for the robbing and rape. Holloway argued that he didnt do the rape but was charged for it, and wasnt properly represented. The court sided with Holloway as A single lawyer representing all of them for different crimes.

Furman v Georgia - death penalty

Furman while robbing a home tried to flee but tripped and his gun went off killing one of the residents. He was sentenced to death. The court sided with Furman as IT was a cruel and unusual punishment and violated the constitution.

Gregg v Georgia-death penalty 2

Gregg was arrested for armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death.Gregg chalenged the death penalty and stated that it was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and violated the 8th and 14th. The court sided with Georgia as the death penalty did not violate the 8 and 14th.

Tropp v Dulles - Citizenship

Trop left his position in morroco but returned stating that he "decided to return to the stockade". He was dishonorably discharged and when he applied for a passport he learned he had lost his citizenship. The court sided with Tropp as losing your citizenship would be considered cruel and unusual.

Roe v Wade

Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry wade as the law about abortions being illegal (unless it would save a womans life ). She argued that it abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court sided with Roe as the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice whether to have an abortion.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org

Mississippi passed a law called the “Gestational Age Act,” banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks’ gestational age. The court did not rule in favor of either.

Jacobson v Massachusetts - Vaccination mandate

Cambridge had A law passed that required people to be vaccinated against their will. Jacobson refused and was fined 5 bucks. He argued it was unconstitutional adn the court ruled in favor of the state as it was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens.

Craig v Boren - Drinking age

Oklahoma had a rule for sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. The law was called discrimonary due to it being Girl and Boy. The Court sided Craig as it made unconstitutional gender classifications

Obergefell v Hodges - same sex marriage

Certain states did not allow same sex marriages adn it was challeged as unconstitutional. The court ruled agaist the states
The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.