# data[].attributes.headline
brown v. topeka board of education (1954)

# data[].attributes.subject
brown v. topeka board of education (1954)

# data[].attributes.body
1) the historical events that led to this case would have started with freeing the slaves and making blacks "equal" to whites, and giving then the same privileges but still keeping them separate like they were still less of a person.
2) both sides were that it was still equal because they still had the opportunity to be educated but the other side was it was not equal because they were being denied the education that white people were receiving and felt it was unfair.
3)the supreme court ruled that it was in violation of the 14th amendment equal rights protection clause and allowed them to be able to be granted the same education as everyone else regardless of their race.
4) the impact of their decisions led to the equal education provided to anyone regardless of race.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the late 50's and 60's, all sorts of internal divisions were worsening, and more and more citizens were moving to urban areas; so when the reason for this case began, there was an outcry of injustice.
2. The plantiff, Baker, argued that the redistribution of the counties underrepresented urban areas because of the population change. Carr was sued, even though he was not responsible for the change in distribution.
3.  A year later, the supreme court decided 6 to 2 in favor of Baker.
4. The case showed that changing voting lines can raise questions of justice and enabled federal involvement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Roe v. Wade (1973): Women have the ability to have abortions

# data[].attributes.subject
Roe v. Wade (1973): Women have the ability to have abortions

# data[].attributes.body
1) In the 60s, abortions were denied and women turned to unsafe procedures
2) Jane Roe wanted to terminate her pregnancy but Texas law wouldn't allow it
3) The Supreme Court gave the woman her own rights to abortion as protected by the 14th amendment
4) Since abortion is legal women are able to have safer abortions
-Veronica Ayala

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ernesto Miranda was accused of committing robbery,  kidnapping, and rape.
2. The persecuting side accused him of committing the crime due to the recorded confession but Miranda was never advised of his rights.
3. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that they could not use Miranda's confession  in a criminal court.
4. The impact that the trial brought was the Miranda rights. When you are being arrested you are read your Miranda rights which is basically telling you your right to an attorney and self incrimination.

Laden Dahir

# data[].attributes.headline
Roe v. Wade (1973):  Gave some protections to a woman's right to have an abortion.

# data[].attributes.subject
Roe v. Wade (1973):  Gave some protections to a woman's right to have an abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.
2.) Appellant (Jane Roe): sought out the right to safely abort her pregnancy.
Texas law prohibited abortions except in extreme cases (mother's life in danger)
3.) Supreme Court recognized that a woman's right to abortion is falls under right to privacy (protected by the 14th Amendment).
4.) Because of this Supreme Court ruling, women can have safe abortions.
~Hannah Shovlin

# data[].attributes.body
1. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive.
2.She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
3. Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.
4. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Noah Taylor

# data[].attributes.body
Jared Payton
1. The 2000 presidential election pitted U.S. Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, against Texas Governor George W. Bush, a Republican. As the election results were counted, it became clear that the vote would be very close, and that the results in the state of Florida.
2.Gore argued that there was in fact a uniform standard for re-counting votes. The standard, as stated in Florida statute, was that a vote would count if the “clear intent of the voter” was reflected in the ballot.   Bush argued that a recount would violate the United state constitution.  Fourteenth Amendment says that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
3.  The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, and in a 5-4 decision determined that Florida judges had indeed gone beyond their own jurisdiction in requiring an extended manual recount.
4. George W. Bush was determined the winner of Florida, and was now the president of the united states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Miranda V. Arizona (1967): Established that police need to read someone their rights if they are being detained

# data[].attributes.subject
Miranda V. Arizona (1967): Established that police need to read someone their rights if they are being detained

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old woman 10 days prior of the court hearing.
2. Ernesto's side argued that he was never read his rights and the confession he signed was to be thrown out.
The prosecution side argued that he was read some of his rights and "voluntarily" waived them.
3. The supreme court chose to overturn Ernesto's conviction because the defendant obviously didn't understand the rights that were read to him.
4. This created what is known now to be our "Miranda Rights" and every police officer must read them to the detained.

- Jared Fox

# data[].attributes.body
Chris Henestofel
1. The events of world war I happened and men were drafted into the army.
2. Schenck criticized the draft and said it was very wrong due to the fact of our capitalist system. He stated in his letters mailed to circulars that to petition the draft with peace. The supreme court stated that he violated the espionage act and he was held liable for trying to deem recruitment wrong.
3.The supreme court made a decision to charge him with conspiracy of violating the espionage act.
4. The outcome was that instances like this during peacetime are less serious than wartime instances and these problems can be considered dangerous to the government.

# data[].attributes.body
kayla
1969- freedom of speech for KKK member. Brandenberg made a speech at a KKK meeting and was convicted under Ohio criminal syndicalism law, it was seen as crime, terrorism, violence, and sabotage. the problem was that the ohio law violated his 1st rights amendment of free speech. the court decided that speech si able to be prohibited if someone is directing a crime that is about to happen to another person.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times vs. The United States of America (1970).

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times vs. The United States of America (1970).

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Richard Nixon is president and is doing things that presidents shouldn't do, If a document was leaked it would be huge the press wants to hold Nixon accountable .
2). The Nixon administration wanted to prevent The Washington post and The New York Times From publishing Materials that were belonging to a classified defense department, With the history of the united states activity with Vietnam.
3.) The Supreme Court ruled for The New York Times company.
4.) News outlets are not allowed to do that only if it causes grave and reparable danger to the united states.

Devon Creech

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker V. Des Moines (1969) Student anti war protest by wearing black armbands in school and how it was protected under the 1st and 14th amendments.

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker V. Des Moines (1969) Student anti war protest by wearing black armbands in school and how it was protected under the 1st and 14th amendments.

# data[].attributes.body
Will
1.) This was in support of a truce in the Vietnam war.
2.) Tinker was stating that it was a forum of protest but the school district instating that if asked to take an arm band off you must without refusal or you were suspended. Basically the school said it broke dress code.
3.) They sided with the students because it was a pure form of speech.
4.) That they were in the lines of the law but the school was as well because it was distracting students.

# data[].attributes.body
1993; Individual rights
1. Gary Lee Johnson burned an american flag at a communist rally outside of the RNC
2. One side argued it should be illegal to burn a national symbol and the other stated it is expressive, therefore protected by free speech laws.
3.The SC ruled in favor of Johnson and his right to burn the flag under free speech.
4.It led to the nullification of laws in 48 states that prevented the burning of the flag.

Krew Crump

# data[].attributes.body
1969  Individual Rights

1) The historical circumstances leading up to this event were that the KKK

2) The argument from the court was brandenberg was using his first amendment right  but he broke ohios criminal syndicalism act that basically says you can say what you want but dont promote criminal acts of political industrial and social change and brandenberg argument was my rights are constitutional and im protected under the first amendment

3) The court ruled in favor of brandenburg because Ohio criminal syndicalism  violated his freedom of stretch protected under the first and fourteenth amendment

4) The impact of this decision was it changed the view on freedom of speech
DEonte Long

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas V. Johnston (1993)- the flag burning is protected by the First Amendment: by Anna Wengerter 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas V. Johnston (1993)- the flag burning is protected by the First Amendment: by Anna Wengerter 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In front of the Dallas City Hall, Johnston protested by burning an American Flag against Reagan administration policies and was convicted.
2. One side of the argument was questioning if burning a flag was considered a form of speech under the 1st amendment. The other side believes it it very illegal and goes against the 1st amendment.
3. The case went to Supreme court and the decision was to make it legal because it should be a persons freedom of speech.
4. The impact of this decision now caused people to be allowed to burn the flag because of this insident.

# data[].attributes.headline
Obergefell V. Hodges (2015): The right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.   (Kim Satkowski)          

# data[].attributes.subject
Obergefell V. Hodges (2015): The right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.   (Kim Satkowski)          

# data[].attributes.body
1. Historical circumstances leading up to this event are our society is being more comfortable with gay marriage.
2. One side of the argument was marriage rights wasn't under the law and the other side was using the 14th Amendment to make it legal.
3. The Supreme Court made is legal for same-sex marriage because they agree to how its related to the 14th amendment.
4. Gay couples world wide got married and a celebration was proposed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Roe V. Wade (1973): Gave some protections to a woman's right to have an abortion. ~Priscilla~

# data[].attributes.subject
Roe V. Wade (1973): Gave some protections to a woman's right to have an abortion. ~Priscilla~

# data[].attributes.body
1) the number of abortions increased significantly during the 1930s. In the 50s,  Hospitals start to form "therapeutic abortion boards" to decide whether doctors can perform an abortion on a case-by-case basis. In the 60s and on, abortions continued to be denied and women start unsafely performing procedures on themselves
2) Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.
3) The Supreme Court recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions, making abortion legal
4) now that abortion is legal, it has become one of the safest medical procedures in the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brandenberg V. Ohio (1969): Freedom of speech for a member of the KKK

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandenberg V. Ohio (1969): Freedom of speech for a member of the KKK

# data[].attributes.body
1) A law in Ohio was made for illegal advocating as it was illegal for "crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"
2) Brandenberg was a leader of the KKK who at a rally, made a speech but was later convicted under a Ohio syndicalism law. Brandenberg felt as if the law prohibits public speech that it violates his right to free speech as protected by the first and fourteen amendments.
3) The court used two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1)speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action.
4) The failure to make the distinction of the two acts rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

-Dayshod D.

# data[].attributes.headline
Schenck vs. United States (1919): The First Amendment DOES  NOT protect someone criticizing the draft institution for U.S. military (World War On)                ~Makaylee Abels~

# data[].attributes.subject
Schenck vs. United States (1919): The First Amendment DOES  NOT protect someone criticizing the draft institution for U.S. military (World War On)                ~Makaylee Abels~

# data[].attributes.body
1) World War One. They needed a mobilized army and in order to do that they needed to draft men into the army.
2) Schenck was saying that the draft did not give the men who were being drafted the opportunity to plead the first amendment, which is violated by the Espionage Act.
The US is saying that he shouldn't because it is his duty as a citizen of the United States.
3) The Supreme Court went against Schenck because the danger was sever that if you spoke out against the draft that you would be considered as causing a danger to the United States.
4) The Supreme Court basically put a limit on the first amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Obergefell V. Hodges (2015)- The right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. Grace Manship 

# data[].attributes.subject
Obergefell V. Hodges (2015)- The right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. Grace Manship 

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Events from history leading up to this would be that society not used to gay marriage. People had to hide it back then if they were gay.
2.) Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that, while same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions. Instead, this issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of their electorates.
3.) Marriage rights have traditionally been addressed through both parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the same interrelated principles of liberty and equality apply with equal force to these cases; therefore, the Constitution protects the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.
4.) Gay marriage around the world was more frequent.