Post your case paragraph (description) and art (cartoon, animoto, or xtranormal) here
Name: Abby
Case: Tinker v Des Moines
Description: Mary Beth and John Tinker were suspended from their public school for wearing black armbands. They were wearing them to protest the US involvement in Vietnam. Their suspension lasted "until they took them off." The Tinkers decided to take it to court. They lost in the district court and the appeals court. When they took it to the Supreme court the ruling was overturned. (Meaning symbolic speech, like armbands, is covered by the First Amendment)
Abbytoon.png



Name: Amal
Case: Dred Scott v Sanford
Paragraph: In 1977, Dred Scott was born in Virginia. He belonged to the Blows family and was later on sold to Mr. Emerson. Dred Scott lived with the Emerson's for twelve years. Twelve years later, Mr. Emerson dies and Dred Scott marries Harriet Johnson and they have two children. The Scotts decide to sue for their freedom at the St. Louis Court. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed and the Scotts did not get their freedom. Abolitionist attorneys try to help Dred Scott but could not get him to be free. Suddenly, Mrs. Emerson decides to marry an abolitionist who then frees the Scotts. Scott dies a year later :/

Supreme Court decision: Overrules against the Circuit Court decision and returns Scott to slavery. (In fact, the Supreme Court said slaves couldn't even sue. IT is considered one of the darkest cases in the Supreme Court's history)

Art:


Name: Ryan M

Case: Miranda v Arizona

Paragraph: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He also kidnapped a woman. He signed a confession, unaware of his rights. He and his attorney made it to the supreme court but were overthrown. he served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to excercise his right to remain silent, and was released.

Supreme Court Decision: Everyone must be informed of their rights upon arrest = Miranda Warning (you have the right to remain silent anything you say...)

Art:


Name:Steph

Case: Miranda v Arizona

Paragraph:
Miranda was arrested and interrogated, he confessed on paper the crimes he was charged with and said he was aware of his rights. The police did not inform him of the 5th or 6th Amendment. Miranda defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The attorney said Miranda was not aware of his rights. The police said they did not give him an explanation of his rights. The Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. After the case Miranda vs. Arizona the Supreme Court established the Miranda rule, which is “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

Art:


Name: Jessica P

Paragraph:
Hazelwood V Kuhlmeier is about a journalism class who felt that the school had violated their first amendment rights. The Students had worked extremely hard on writing articles for the school newspaper. However, when Principal Reynolds read the newspaper for approval he did not agree with students writing about pregnant students and divorce parents. This conflict went to the U.S. District Court who agreed with the school. The students appealed the decision and The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court. Then the school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. After, The Supreme Court of the United States thought this was an important case and it dealt with the rights of the students. The Supreme Court agreed to hear both side of the argument.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court favored with the School district. They felt that the student's rights were not violated and that the school had the right to censor their newspaper articles.


Art: Hazelwood_v_Kulmeier.png

Name: Ryan
Case:Mapp v Ohio
Paragraph: There was thought to be a wanted individual hiding in Ms. Mapp's home. The police came into her home without a search warrant and found obscene pictures in a trunk. She was found guilty of having the items and sentenced. The supreme court was issued by Mapp to see if the evidence found in her home is able to be put in a trial.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court determined that nothing illegally obtained can EVER be used in a trail/as evidence. Proper warrants/search procedures must be followed.



Art:Mapp_v_Ohio.png

Name:Katelyn M
Case: Tinker vs. Des Moines
Paragraph: In 1969, students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The public schools ruled that they would suspend students who refused to remove the armbands after being asked until they were willing to come to school without armbands. Two students, the Tinker children, refused to remove their armbands and took the case to court. The US District Court and Court of Appeals both ruled that the school board was justified in asking the students to remove the armbands, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers and stated that schools need to have substantial disruption to the classroom before limiting the first amendment rights of students.

Art:

Name: Molly G
Case: Regent of CA v. Bakke
Paragraph:
Bakke applies to get into Medical School through the Regular Admissions Program. He is not admitted into the school. However, there is also a Special Admissions Program for minorities and students at a disadvantage. Within this Special Admissions Program, the requirements for admission are lower. Student of the minority are admitted through the Special Admissions Program although they are less qualified than some regular admissions applicants.

Supreme Court Decision: The Court ruled admission for Bakke into the school. It was ruled UnConstitutional for the school to base their admissions on race, according to the 14th amendment.

Art: cartoon.png

Name: Caitlin J
Case: TLO vs. New Jersey 1985
Paragraph: Two girls were found smoking in the bathroom at a high school in New Jersey. One of the girls, T.L.O., denied it, so Principal Choplick searched her purse and found cigarettes and rolling paper. He continued to search the purse and found a pipe, marijuana, plastic bags, money in one dollar bills, and a list of students owing her money. Choplick called the police. Although T.L.O. pleaded that the search was a violation of the fourth amendment, the court decided that the search was reasonable and gave her a year's probation. T.L.O. appealed to the apeallate division, but no violation of the fourth amendment was found. The New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the search was a violation of the 4th amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: They reversed the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court deciding that school officials are able to search without violation of the Constitution if the search is made under "reasonable suspicion."
Art:
cool-cartoon-722715.png


Name:Jordan B

Case:Brown vs. Board of Education

Paragraph: In 1954 Linda Brown and her sister Terry Lynn walked for a long time through a dangerous railroad to get to school everyday. There was an all white school right by the Brown's house but they were forced to walk to the all black school because of segregation laws. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated school system was against the constitution. Since blacks and whites had equal facilities like in Plessy v. Ferguson it was okay to be segregated at the time.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. It overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that allowed for "separate but equal" facilities for whites and blacks. Meaning separate is NOT equal, ever.

Art:
Brown_vs._Board_of_Education.png



Name:Kaitlin C
Case:Plessy v. Ferguson
Paragraph:
It started in 1890 when the state of Louisiana passed the “Separate Car Act”, a segregation law which demanded railroad companies to provide separate but equal train cars for whites and for blacks. If someone violated this law, they paid a $25 fine or went to jail for 20 days. On June 7, 1892, the Citizen’s Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Act planned for 30 year-old shoemaker and committee member Homer Plessy, to board a “white car”. Plessy was arrested after doing it, even though he only had one black great grandparent, making him only 1/8 black, but the state of Louisiana considered him a black man. He argued to the district court that the Separate Car Act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The judge, John Howard Ferguson, in a previous case, declared the Separate Car Act unconstitutional in states aside from Louisiana, but in Plessy’s case, Ferguson declared the law constitutional, considering the train was running in Louisiana, and found Plessy guilty. The Louisiana State Supreme Court agreed with Judge Ferguson in 1893, so Plessy took his case to the Supreme Court in 1896, where they also found the law constitutional.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court agreed with the Louisiana State court and declared the Separate Car Act as constitutional. This created the policy of separate but equal.

Art:

Name: Michelle S
Case: New Jersey v. TLO
Paragraph: TLO and a friend were smoking in the bathroom when they were caught and sent to the principal. When questioned, TLO said she doesn't even smoke. In response, the principal checked her purse. Along with cigarettes he found marijauna, a wad of money, and a list of people who owe her money. Accused of being a marijauna dealer, she later admitted to this accusation at the police station. The court had to decide if this information could be used or if it violated her 4th amendment rights of illegal search and seizure.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the State Supreme Court decision and voted for New Jersey 6:3. They said this search was lawful because it had probable cause and that a school official can hold a search/seizure if it is necessary for discipline or if a crime has been suspected.

Art:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch?e=20090423090744978

Name:Sarah H
Case:Texas v. Johnson
Paragraph: In 1984, a group of protesters protested against the Regan Administration during the Republican National Convention. When the group got in front of the Dallas City Hall Gregory Lee Johnson, one of the protesters, lit an American Flag on fire. He was arested and sentenced to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. The issue discussed in this case was is Gregory Lee Johnson's actions protected by the first Amendment?

Supreme Court Decision: In a five to four decision the Supreme Court found, the first Amendment did protect Johnson's actions.

Art:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch?e=20090422162633960

Name:Nick A
Case:Mapp vs Ohio

In 1961 Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court after being convicted for possession of obscene materials. She appealed after it was admitted that the Cleveland police raided her house without a warrant. They entered her house on the suspicion that she was hiding a wanted person and that is when the found the obscene material in a trunk.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction. The Supreme Courts decision was that all evidence gained without due process is inadmissible and can not be used in state or federal courts.


Art:<script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.clearspring.com/o/46928cc51133af17/49f06bb01a3f585b/46928cc55a157e55/f49c867a/-cpid/465d6b0a4926f449/widget.js"></script>
Art:

Name:Andrew P
Case: Plessy V. Ferguson
Paragraph:
Plessy was 1/8 black, he sat in a white train car and was arrested, he argued that the "Separate Car Act" was against the 13th and 14th amendments.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court decided that segregation was permitted if the facilities were equal. They also said that the 14th amendment was not meant to give negros social equality, only political.

Art:
Picture_1.png

Name:Nathan W
Case: Brown Vs. Board Of Education
Paragraph: In 1951, Linda Brown wanted to transfer from an all black school to an all white school because it was closer to her house. She believed that the people were going against the 14th amendment which is "Equal protection of laws". The District Court said they were not going against it because black people would interfere with white people learning. They would be a distraction and therefore should keep it the same way. Linda Brown and family took it to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision:unanimous decision is that they overrule segregation.

Art:

Name:Max S
Case:Gideon vs Wainwright
Paragraph:Gideon was charged for breaking and entering because an eye witness seen him 2 1/2 hours before the crime. the police checked him and seen that he had a bottle of wine and some changed so they arrested him for the crime. Gideon wasn't given a lawyer because he was poor and the extent of his case was not worth it. he was sentenced to be in jail for 5 years. While in jail Gideon studied law and ended up writing a letter to the supreme court about his case. they looked over the case a ended up ruling for Gideon.

Supreme Court Decision:The Supreme court ruled for Gideon because it was against the 6th amendment.

Art:gideon_vs_wainwright.png

Name:Alex A
Case:Dred Scott V. Sandford
Paragraph:A slave named Dred Scott was taken into free territory with his master. After returning to Missouri from the free territory
dred sued for his freedom.

Supreme Court Decision: the court ruled against Mr. Scott saying that a man has a right to his property ( property in this case
meaning Mr. Scott).

Art:cool-cartoon-723289.png

Name:michael m
Case:Gideon v. Wainwright
Paragraph:Gideon was accused of braking an entering. because he was seen around there a couple hours before the crime. an when he was found he had change an a wine bottle in his hand. Gideaon asked the judge for a lawyer an was not given to him because he was too poor an was only need for speical cases not his. He was found guilty an was sent to jail. An while in jail he sent a letter to the supreme court saying that his 6th ammendment was being restricted from him. An the supreme found that it was a n gave him another trial.

Supreme Court Decision:Gideon won a new trial and was found not guilty with the help of a court appointed attroney.

Art:
gideon vs. wain
gideon vs. wain


Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art:

Name:
Case:
Paragraph:

Supreme Court Decision:

Art: