Rigby

Bill Of Rights

  • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

    West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
    West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was a landmark judgment of the United States Supreme Court, and the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause dictates that students salute the American flag in public schools. or pledge of allegiance. The court decided it was unconstitutional to make them stand for the pledge. The impact would be that anyone is able to sit during the pledge of allegiance.
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    Mapp v. Ohio was a 1961 landmark Supreme Court case decided 6–3 by the Warren Court, in which it was held that Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states and excluded unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in state criminal prosecutions. The impact of this would be that now a warrant or probable cause is needed so search a person or their items.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    The Supreme Court established that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right for criminal defendants who cannot pay for their own lawyers to have the state appoint attorneys on their behalf. The importance of this case would be that now anyone has a right to an attorney that is provided by the state.
  • Engel v. Vitale

    Engel v. Vitale
    The Supreme Court ruled that instructing someone to pray in public schools violates the first amendments establishment clause. The ruling is hailed by some as a victory for religious freedom, while criticized by others as striking a blow to the nation's religious traditions. The impact today would be that prayers aren't held in public schools.
  • Roe v. Wade

    Roe v. Wade
    Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. This is still a very impactful case today, many are pushing to legalize abortion no matter why a woman would need one
  • NY Times v. Sullivan

    NY Times v. Sullivan
    City Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. He sent a written request to the Times to retract the information, as required for a public figure to seek punitive damages in a libel action under Alabama law. A jury in state court awarded him $500,000 in damages. The state supreme court affirmed and the Times appealed. This is still important today because people get sued for defamation
  • Grisworld v. Connecticut

    Grisworld v. Connecticut
    C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. The Court ended up ruling that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception
  • Miranda v. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona
    Police had Miranda write a confession about a rape and kidnapping. The confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona agreed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he didn't specifically request counsel
  • Loving v. Virginia

    Loving v. Virginia
    A black woman and a white man had gotten married in Virginia. The couple was then charged with violating the state's ant miscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Loving's were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Bradenburg v. Ohio

    Bradenburg v. Ohio
    Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform. The Court's opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. This is still important today because now you can be charged with inciting violence through speaking.
  • Tinker v. Des Moines

    Tinker v. Des Moines
    Kids were suspended for still wearing armbands for protest after the principle banned them. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline.
  • NY Times v. US

    NY Times v. US
    The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The Gov. said it was necessary for national security reasons. In its opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case.
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman

    Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The Pennsylvania statute was passed in 1968 and provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. Which the court ruled as a violation of the 1st amendment.
  • Furman v. Georgia

    Furman v. Georgia
    Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In this case, is it cruel and unusual punishment? Yes, The court's one-page per curium opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.
  • Gregg v. Georgia

    Gregg v. Georgia
    Gregg was found guilty for robbery and murdered. He was then sentenced to death. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Is the death sentence allowed under the 8th and 14th amendment? No, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances.
  • New Jersey v. TLO

    New Jersey v. TLO
    A high school student had her purse searched suspecting she had cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list containing the names of students who owed her money. She was charged with possession of marijuana. Before trial, she moved to suppress evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. She was found guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year. guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year. School had probable cause.
  • Texas v. Johnson

    Texas v. Johnson
    Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. Under the first amendment, the supreme court found that his flag burning was protected under the 1st amendment.
  • Employment Division v. Smith

    Employment Division v. Smith
    Counselors for a rehabilitation center took peyote for a religious practice. They were fired for it. The counselors filed for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The state appellate court reversed the denial of benefits, finding that the denial violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. You can face legal troubles for taking an illegal substance for religion
  • Church of Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah

    Church of Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah
    The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice which was a violation of the churches 1st amendment right. The ordinances were overturned. Freedom of religion is important 2day
  • Morse v. Frederick

    Morse v. Frederick
    Kid held up "bong hits 4 Jesus" sign at school event. He was suspended for 10 days. He then sued the school due to a violation of his 1st amendment right. He ended up losing the case due to promoting illegal drugs at school. This is a very important case today because students don't have much of a right to free speech in school today. Although
  • DC v. Heller

    DC v. Heller
    Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. Justice Stevens argued that the Amendment states its purpose specifically in relation to state militias and does not address the right to use firearms in self-defense. This is important because the question of who can carry a firearm is popular in todays society
  • McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago
    Many suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in DC v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The SC reversed it, saying the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.
  • Snyder v. Phelps

    Snyder v. Phelps
    The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. The SC said that the suit violated the churches 1st amendment.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges

    Obergefell v. Hodges
    Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in many different states to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The Supreme Court agreed with the couples that same sex marriage should be recognized in all states. This is very important today because all 50 states recognize gay marriage and gay couples.
  • Mahaney Area school District v. B.L.

    Mahaney Area school District v. B.L.
    A girl tried out for and failed to make her high school's varsity cheerleading team, making only the junior varsity team. Over a weekend and away from school, she posted a picture of herself on Snapchat which said “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” She was the suspended from JV for a year. Her mom took the school to court saying they violated her 1st amendment. The Court held that schools may regulate speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder