# data[].attributes.body
ISSUE- Scott reportedly attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, who refused the sale. In 1846, with the help of antislavery lawyers, Harriet and Dred Scott filed individual lawsuits for their freedom in Missouri state court in St. Louis on the grounds that their residence in a free state and a free territory had freed them from the bonds of slavery. It was later agreed that only Dred’s case would move forward; the decision in that case would apply to Harriet’s case as well. Although the case was long thought to have been unusual, historians later demonstrated that several hundred suits for freedom were filed by or on behalf of slaves in the decades before the Civil War.
DECISION- Supreme Court ruled voted 7-2 that a slave who has resided in a free state has no freedom. Which means African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Facts of the case:
T.L.O.was 15 year old girl whose pocketbook was searched by her school principal. After a teacher smelled cigarette smoke on T.L.O. the principal searched her pocketbook & found small amount of 🤬, rolling papers, roll of money, and a list of student's names with dollar amounts written beside them.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the Case 1. In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white student that had a 3.8 GPA and high test scores, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. She filed a lawsuit against the school claiming that she was being discriminated against because of her race.
Constitutional Issue 2. Is it a violation of the Constitution for schools to use race as a deciding factor in admissions? (14th Amendment)
Court's Ruling 3. A 5-4 ruling siding with the university of Michigan and their use of affirmative action.
Podcast/Video 4.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts: Morris A. Kent, a 16 year old boy, was arrested and interrogated by the police as a suspect in connection to a case involving rape and robbery. As he was being interrogated, he confessed to being involved with the case, and the jurisdiction was disregarded by the juvenile court. This allowed Kent to be tried in adult court and moved up to district court. Kent attempted to dismiss this decision because he claimed that the Juvenile Courts Act required the juvenile court to conduct a full investigation and have all of the facts, but they only had the confession that wasn't even a complete one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court held that proper investigation is necessary before a waive of jurisdiction by a juvenile court.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the case
In the Mecklenburg, North Carolina, school system in which about 14,000 black students attended schools that were totally black or 99% done.North Carolina was using bussing to maintain segregation. The NAACP sued the school district on behalf of Vera and Darius Swann, the parents of a 6 year old child. They sued the school district to allow their child to go to Seversville Elementary School, one of the few integrated schools in Charlotte. The district judge ruled in favor of the Swann's, and his decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The decision made an impact all over the U.S creating more integrated schools.

Questions before the Court
The Constitutional issue was were federal courts authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?

Courts Ruling
Due to the courts ruling, which was that segregated busing was not fair, the busing strategy was adopted elsewhere in the U.S and played a major role in integrating U.S public schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Bridget Mergens, a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska asked her principle if she could start an after-school christian club. The principle told her that it would be illegal to have a religious club.
The court ruled on the side of Bridget Mergens. They said that a school can have a religious club as long as they don't sponsor it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Minersville School District V. Gobitis (1940)

# data[].attributes.subject
Minersville School District V. Gobitis (1940)

# data[].attributes.body
Issue- Does having a mandatory flag salute infringe on first and fourteenth amendment rights?
Background- Two students were expelled after refusing to salute the flag. Their reason for not saluting was that they thought it would be against their religion. Showing respect over an object was against their beliefs.
Ruling- No it does not infringe on rights in the Constitution. The court stated that the flag was a symbol of national unity and national security outweighed legal values. The decision was overturned 3 years later.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional issue: Was the 5th and 14th Amendment rights violated if the juvenile court's disregarded the jurisdiction in the court?
Court's Ruling in this Case: Yes, Kent was denied the constitutional right to due process in juvenile court in a 5-4 majority decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas stating that there was not a sufficient investigation, with no hearing, counsel, or record access before the juvenile waiver. The Supreme Court sent the waiver back to the district court to determine if the waiver was proper. Because Kent was already 21 at the time of the decision, the juvenile court didn't have the duty of saying whether it was proper or not. The Supreme Court said that Kent's conviction was eradicated, not looking to see if the waiver is proper or improper.

# data[].attributes.headline
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)

# data[].attributes.subject
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)

# data[].attributes.body
In 1995 a student on the student council of Santa Fe High School said a Christian prayer over the intercom at a football game for another student. Two families sued the student because they believed it was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Question before the court:
Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Decision:
In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court voted that the student did violate the Establishment Clause because it was a public speech.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-62

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the case
The Boy Scouts terminated the adult membership of a James Dale who was a gay rights activist and who was also openly gay. James Dale sued arguing that the Boy Scouts discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in public places.

What is the Constitutional Issue?
Does N.J. public accommodation law violate Boy Scouts First Amendment right to stop homosexuals becoming leaders.

What is the Court's Ruling?
The Court ruled that the historic private groups could exclude homosexuals from serving as leaders because a private group has the right to set its own moral code.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 

# data[].attributes.body
Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett were juniors at Hazelwood East High School in St.Louis Missouri. These girls helped and edited their school newspaper for journalism. They tried to enter their articles on divorce and teen pregnancy that may have been too sensitive for younger audiences. The principle pulled these articles because they believed it to be inappropriate in a school setting. This upset the girls and they took their case to court.

Was the principles decision to pull the articles from the school newspaper a violation of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech?

The Supreme Court ruled against the girls and said that they school newspaper was not a public forum where they can voice their opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the Case:
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller were both members of the Old Order Amish religion. Adin Yutzy was a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite church. They were prosecuted under the Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public school until they turn 16. The parents of these three teenagers, refused to send them to public schools after 8th grade because it went against their religion

Issue: Did Wisconsin's law they required parents to send their children that were under the age of 16 to public schools violate the 1st Amendment, because they felt that it violated their religion?

Ruling: It was an unanimous decision. The Supreme Court ruled that an individual's interest in religion outweighed the State's law in forcing children to go to public schools until they turned 16.

Links:

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the Case

A law was made requiring the University of Texas to admit all those graduating from high school ranked in the top ten percent of their class, however there were differences in the ethnic makeup of undergraduates and state population. The University of Texas then changed its policy in 1997 to consider race when looking at the remainder of the high school seniors not in the top ten percent.

Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, was not in the top ten percent of her class, and competed with those who were also not. Her application was denied.

Fisher sued the university stating that its use of race violated the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. The university claimed it was pursuing a greater diversity of students.

Constitutional Issue

Does the consideration of race in college admissions violate the 14th Amendment?

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that no, the consideration of race in admissions does not violate the equal protection clause. The university is allowed to do this as long as it meets "strict scrutiny"; the use of racial consideration is constitutional when it is necessary to achieve a diverse student body.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the Case:
A fifteen year old boy was arrested after being accused of making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. The boy's name was Gerald Francis Gault and he had previously been placed on probation. After the arrest, his parents were not notified that their son had been arrested. In a juvenile court, Galt was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of twenty-one (5-years).

Constitutional Issue:
The question before the court was whether or not the procedures used to commit Gault were constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Court's Ruling:
The court said that the procedures used did not comply with the Constitution.