# data[].attributes.body
Look up the Bill of Rights and copy the wording for your amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Use your own words to explain what right(s) this amendment really grants us

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
Almost all of these rights can be controversial or be interpreted in different ways. Explain how your right can have different interpretationslm

# data[].attributes.body
Describe a real case where the crux of this right was challenged in court. Try to choose as current of an issue as you can, or, one that is very famous.

# data[].attributes.body
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

# data[].attributes.body
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The rights of citizens will be protected whether these rights are listed or not.

# data[].attributes.body
The powers that the Constitution does not expressly grant to the United States or prohibits the States from exercising are reserved to the States or the people.

# data[].attributes.body
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

# data[].attributes.body
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

# data[].attributes.body
Wasn't really studied until 1960s

1967 Mulford Act

Before then, most people interpreted it as collective, not individual right to bear arms.

Black Panthers wanted to have guns in public

Lead to gun control laws

People who liked guns got scared their guns would be taken away too

# data[].attributes.body
A person charged with a crime has the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and a laywer.

# data[].attributes.body
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

# data[].attributes.body
It granted the right for Americans to possess weapons for the protection of themselves, their rights, and their property.

# data[].attributes.body
The Fourth Amendment grants us protection against reasonable searches and seizures by the government. It ensures that individuals have the right to privacy and security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, safeguarding them from arbitrary intrusions by law enforcement.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 1947 case of United Public Workers v. Mitchell 

# data[].attributes.subject
The 1947 case of United Public Workers v. Mitchell 

# data[].attributes.body
Congress enacted the Hatch Act, which made it illegal for any officer or employee of the executive branch of the federal government to take an active role in political management or political campaigns. They argued that section of the Act was unconstitutional. None of the appellants, with the exception of George Poole, were facing disciplinary action for violating the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was not docketed until more than 60 days after the appeal was allowed. The appellees argued that, because the proper appeals process was not followed, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

# data[].attributes.body
Heller Vs. DC

Landmark supreme court case that changed interpretation of 2nd amendment from collective to individual right

# data[].attributes.body
The right that this amendment grants us is no soldier is allowed to go into people's homes unless granted by the owner of the house. In short, soldiers can't just barge into people's homes.

# data[].attributes.body
Brendlin v. California

The police pulled over a vehicle to determine whether the driver was driving with expired tags. During the stop, an officer recognized the defendant, Bruce Brendlin, as a parole violator. The officer arrested the defendant and found methamphetamine on his person. The defendant was charged with parole violation and possession of narcotics. At his trial, he moved to suppress (keep out) the narcotics, stating that the police lacked justification to stop the automobile in the first place. The defendant’s argument was that the temporary plates indicated that an application for renewal of an expired license was pending. The State of California conceded, on appeal, that the stop was unjustified.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-brendlin-v-california

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facts

The police pulled over a vehicle to determine whether the driver was driving with expired tags. During the stop, an officer recognized the defendant, Bruce Brendlin, as a parole violator. The officer arrested the defendant and found methamphetamine on his person. The defendant was charged with parole violation and possession of narcotics. At his trial, he moved to suppress (keep out) the narcotics, stating that the police lacked justification to stop the automobile in the first place. The defendant's argument was that the temporary plates indicated that an application for renewal of an expired license was pending. The State of California conceded, on appeal, that the stop was unjustified.

Procedure

The case was tried in the California state court system. The trial court held that the passenger had not been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The evidence was admitted and the defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed. The California Supreme Court reinstated the drug evidence and the conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.

Issue

Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a passenger during a traffic stop is seized so that the passenger may challenge the legality of the stop.

Ruling

Yes

Reasoning

Any person seized by a Government agent can challenge the legality of that seizure. In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544(1980), the Court held that the test for determining whether a person is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave under the circumstances. Under the circumstances of this case, no reasonable passenger would have felt free to leave the scene. Although the State of California noted that the defendant might have felt free to leave because he opened (then shut) his door during the stop, the test is objective: What a reasonable person would conclude; not what a particular defendant thinks. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected several findings by the California Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the finding that the police only intended to investigate the driver. It also rejected the California court's concerns that passengers in taxis, buses, and other commercial transportation could be subject to investigation and possible arrest when the driver is pulled over. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that there is a difference between social passengers in private transportation and passengers in commercial transportation.

Concurrences

None (unanimous decision).

Dissents

None (unanimous decision).

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - Brendlin v. California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facts The police pulled over a vehicle to determine whether the driver was driving with expired tags. During the stop, an officer recognized the defendant, Bruce Brendlin, as a parole violator. The officer arrested the defendant and found methamphetamine on his person. The defendant was charged with parole violation and possession of narcotics.

# data[].attributes.body
Wisconsin vs Yoder. A case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the state of Wisconsin to require Amish children to attend public school

# data[].attributes.body
The Tenth Amendment has also been read to clarify that the federal government is essentially limited and restricted and that any decision made by the government should be examined for its overreach of power and authority rather than for any violations of civil liberties.

# data[].attributes.body
Every person who is charged with a crime has the right to have a lawyer present and an ethical fast trial. This is to promote equity for the people who are charged so that, in theory, there are very few false crimes. This is to hear both sides of the story in a criminal charge. This practice helps give rights to the people

# data[].attributes.headline
how can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be contreversial

# data[].attributes.subject
how can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be contreversial

# data[].attributes.body
the amendment protects you from the government searching your stuff or taking it without a good reason. different people argue about what counts as a "good reason" and what kinds of searches are okay. this can lead to disagreements and court cases. it can be interpreted differently because people disagree on what makes a search "unreasonable."

# data[].attributes.body
The Fourth Amendment grants protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause.

# data[].attributes.body
It gave the right for Americans to possess weapons for the protection of themselves, their rights, and their property.

# data[].attributes.body
Collective interpretation:

The right for the government to create a military

Individual Rights interpretation:

The right for citizens to bear arms

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It prohibits Congress from promoting one religion over others and prohibits Congress from restricting an individual's religious practices.

# data[].attributes.body
You have the right to a trial by impartial jury.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1997, the United States made Congress-mandated background checks on gun purchases by state and municipal officials; the federal government transgressed the Tenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment stops the federal government from giving overly severe punishments to criminal defendants, whether as a condition for getting something or in any other way.

# data[].attributes.body
The Fifth Amendment helps protect criminals' rights in trial. the amendment helps protect self-incrimination, which is why we chose this picture because it shows that you cant be incriminated by something you say.

# data[].attributes.body
An individual is able to receive fair judgment by a jury and have an impartial party present to help determine the punishment for their crime, It is also there to help protect the citizen from unfair bias in a court of law as well empower citizens to have a place in the legal system and provide legal opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of a "speedy trial" can mean anything. Since time is relative the idea that everything is speedy is up to interpretation. Also many refuse to hear cases about petty crimes and that they may be dismissed and not have a lawyer. This is contraversial because it says all people have the right to have a lawyer. Small case charges may not alllow a laywer and that is contraversial.

# data[].attributes.body
in Gardner v. Broderick (1968), the New York City Police Department was held to have violated the Fifth Amendment rights of a police officer when it fired him after he refused to waive the Privilege and testify before a grand jury that was investigating police corruption.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial

# data[].attributes.body
The definition of "cruel and unusual" can shift with society's changing values, sparking debates about practices like the death penalty or solitary confinement. Some believe that unclear terms could open the door for punishments or fines that stretch the limits of fairness, leaving room for possible misuse.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment can be controversial because it only prevents government restrictions on speech. It doesn't prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. For example, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Tik Tok. These companies are the ones who are in charge of regulating or restricting speech on their platforms because they are private entities.

# data[].attributes.body
The wording of the amendment is often misinterpreted and taken in the idea that it provides jurisdiction towards lawsuits against the government and does not give rise to a judge to decide a case's outcome.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
This right can be controversial because interpretations of who is a soldier and when they are on or off duty could challenge the amendment's meaning. The government needs to clarify what scenarios allow soldiers to go into someone's house and which scenarios fall under the rights of the Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The case involved correctional officers who were evicted from their state-owned residences at a New York prison during a strike and had their homes used to house National Guard members. The officers sued state officials for violating their Third Amendment rights, and the court ruled in their favor.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court interpreted the 5th Amendment as a due process with two individual rights, that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, the protection of fundamental rights.

# data[].attributes.body
In Wilson v. Seiter (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that for a defendant to claim cruel and unusual punishment due to prison conditions, they must show that the prison officials acted with a guilty or intentional mindset. The district court eventually ruled against Wilson.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case study Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, Gideon appeared in court without an attorny because he couldn't afford one. He requested a attorny to defend him but his request was refused. Desipte being a convicted felon, he argued he had the right to have an attorny as in the sixth ammendment says he has the right to have a lawyer. Though he lost the case it provoked thoughts about if the right to have attorny meant everyone reguardless which followed him having a second trial with an attorny this time.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Colgrove v. Battin Case, it was decided by the courts in 1973 that civil juries of six participants were constitutional after Colgrove claimed that the 7th Amendment was being violated when he did not receive a jury of twelve.

# data[].attributes.body
The amendment was majority of the time interpreted as the individual right to bear arms, after the bill of rights was adopted many interpreted it as the collective right to bear arms instead of individual rights through military organizations or national guard. Many in the Founding generation believed that governments were prone to use guns to oppress the people. much of the debates surrounding the amendment are regarding its purpose and the intentions of the