# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
This article written by Adam Liptak talks about the illegal stops in the Los Angeles area that have been going on recently. The supreme court recently ruled that these stops were legal and that they could continue, much to the dismay of many. Justice Sotomayor talks about how she and the other Democrats on the supreme court dissent to this unlawful ruling. Tricia McLaughlin wrote "law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor." Karen Bass believes that this ruling by the supreme court is an attack on not only LA, but the entire US. There have been many reports and videos on the internet of immigrants being illegally stopped and harshly thrown to the ground. One case is Mr Gavidia, who was thrown to the ground after saying that he didn't know what hospital he was born at. He was eventually forced to show an ID, after which they let him go but never returned his ID. Justice Kavanaugh defended the Supreme Court's ruling by saying that more then 10% of the population in LA is illegal, and that many of them illegally work in landscaping and many other jobs. Justice Sotomayor countered this by stating: "Justice Kavanaugh had “all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

This article clearly shows how many immigrants 4th amendment writes are being violated everyday in Los Angeles, due to racial profiling, and how the Republicans try to defend these searches that are clearly unlawful, by simply saying that some of them MAY be illegal. Democrats clearly oppose these searches due to how unconstitutional the stops that go on in the LA area are, and how the defense that republicans have given are beyond ridiculous.

# data[].attributes.body
Against the ban: Gun-rights groups, civil liberties advocates, and LGBTQ+ organizations argue that banning transgender people from owning firearms would be unconstitutional, discriminatory, and unsupported by evidence. They point out that transgender people are statistically more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and that sweeping away Second Amendment rights based on identity sets a dangerous precedent. Critics also warn of a slippery slope — if the government can strip rights from one group by labeling them “mentally unfit,” it could easily expand to others.

For considering restrictions: Supporters of exploring such a policy argue from a public safety standpoint, especially after high-profile shootings involving transgender individuals. They suggest that gun laws already disqualify people with certain mental health conditions, and some see gender dysphoria as fitting into that framework. From this perspective, restrictions could be justified as preventive measures, aimed at reducing risk before violence occurs, even if it means narrowing gun rights for a specific group.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Colleges Are Cracking Down on Students Now - Savannah 

# data[].attributes.subject
How Colleges Are Cracking Down on Students Now - Savannah 

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by Isabelle Taft on March 29, 2025, talks about how many universities have been responding to vandalism and protests linked to pro-Palestinien groups by using aggressive policing and putting in place surveillance cameras.

At the University of Pennsylvania, red paint dripped down a statue of Benjamin Franklin, the university's founder, catching the school's attention to investigate further. A pro palestinian group had later posted online admitting they were the ones behind it. Police then used local Wi-fi logs and cameras to trace a phone number near the statue then they the court ordered to seize the student's phone.

Columbia University lost $400 million in funding until it gave campus police the power to arrest students. At George Mason University, two sisters had their house searched after graffiti incidents, where political flags and weapons were found, causing them to be banned from campus but not charged. At UC Santa Cruz, student Laaila Irshad had her phone taken during an investigation and still had not received it back months later, even without being accused of a crime. Indiana University Bloomington saw a vandalized statue that led to one of the few criminal charges when a student was accused of mischief after their car and phone were searched. At UNC Chapel Hill, police searched the dorm of Laura Saavedra Forero, a protester identified in footage, and took her phone, though no charges were filed. Across campuses, many students had devices seized but were never actually criminally charged, raising concerns about privacy and free expression.

These events connect directly to the 4th amendment, which protects unreasonable searches and seizures. Many students and civil liberties advocates argue that seizing phones and searching dorms without filing charges exceeds the limit and invades privacy, discouraging free speech and protest (also connecting to the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and assembly). They see it as an abuse of power that ignores constitutional rights. However, universities and police, say that when warrants are ever issued by a judge the searches are legal and justified. From their perspective, these actions are required to keep campuses safe, prevent vandalism and hold students accountable when laws are broken. This debate shows how the friction between safety and constitutional rights is affecting college students today.

# data[].attributes.body
Blaise-High Court to Rule on Life Sentences for Minors

The first who was 17 when he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole for a series of armed robberies. The second case involved Joe Sullivan, who was 13 when he was convicted of robbing a home and later returning with an accomplice to rape, brutally rape, a 73-year-old woman. They are both being sentenced for life in prison, the problem is that it violates the 8th amendment to sentence them to life in prison beacasue they are under aged but at the same time, the crimes that they committed where unforgivable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Court to Rule on Life Sentences for Minors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases Monday over whether sentencing minors to life in prison without a chance for parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the cases with Jim Lehrer.

# data[].attributes.body
This is about how Maryland applied new gun restrictions following the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults. The tragedy was caused by a 20 year old gun man who had a "assault style weapon" in other words a automated gun which is most commonly used in war. Since the supreme court refused to review the case it was left to Maryland to determine what was to happen. After both sides, those who supported the 2nd amendment allowing "assault guns" and those who supported gun restrictions debated they came down to a solution. They would not allow guns that have more than 10 rounds per magazine and they would only allow guns in bars, restaurants and private buildings. Though they also agreed to not allow guns in health care facilities, schools, government buildings, amusement parks, mass transit facilities, race tracks, casinos, museums, state parks and stadiums.

Many different people had their own perspective on the situation but it was mainly split into two. One side suggesting to keep the assault weapons, saying how the bill of rights mentions how every citizen has the right to own a gun. The other side though claimed that the guns purchased by civilians should be used for self defense only and there shouldn't be a reason on why civilians should have military grade weaponry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Associated Press
08/06/2024 09:26 PM EDT Link Copied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons upheld

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court rejected arguments challenging a 2013 law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aura- Struggles for Free Expression on Campus

# data[].attributes.subject
Aura- Struggles for Free Expression on Campus

# data[].attributes.body
“Struggles for Free Expression on Campus” is a collection of Letters to the Editor, in response to an article written by the President of Barnard College entitled, “Now Is the Time for Colleges to Host Difficult Speakers.” In the original article, Laura Ann Rosenbury responded to the event of Charlie Kirk’s assassination when he was speaking on a college campus. She writes that though “1,000 people signed a petition calling for Utah Valley University to rescind Mr. Kirk’s invitation to speak on campus,” she advocates for colleges to have more difficult speakers come in to avoid monolithic thinking. The amendment that is identified in both of these articles is the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech. The letters in response to this article show different perspectives. In the first letter, a novelist and a Barnard professor writes how students, faculty, and staff should not be censored for expressing their beliefs. The second letter is about how the President has initiated policies that ban students from having freedom of speech and their beliefs, and how they decide to represent themselves. The two authors of that letter write that Barnard “is now dead last in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s free speech ranking.” A third letter notes how colleges are trying to keep their freedom of speech, and how they have to “litigate, at great economic cost, to attempt to preserve this freedom.” The text of the First Amendment's free speech clause reads, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." These different perspectives influence this issue because they are saying how they felt the original article offered a misleading point of view, and that the President did not fully embrace her own point on the Barnard campus with students, professors, and staff.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by Meridith McGraw on February 9, 2024 highlights the 4th amendment and talks about how Trump claimed that if he was elected he promised that “no one will lay a finger on your firearms” at an NRA forum in Pennsylvania. He said that “ he would roll back the Biden administration’s ‘Zero-Tolerance’ policy that revokes federal licenses from firearm dealers that violate gun laws.”  and would get rid of regulations on dangerous gun attachments that have been involved in gun violence in the past such as pistol braces, or stabilization devices. He also criticized Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents. He argued that if Biden wouldn’t get charged for having classified documents then neither should he. Trump's speech showed his close relationship with the NRA with him largely supporting expanding gun rights. One perspective is of Trump and the NRA who support the idea of expanding gun rights but there is also the perspective of gun control advocates who give the warning that Trump getting re-elected would be a major setback for the progress on gun safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump promises NRA that if elected, ‘no one will lay a finger on your firearms’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The former president vowed to roll back Biden-era gun restrictions.

# data[].attributes.body
This article written by Annie Coreal shares the story of Christina Cardenas who was subjected to an invasive and unauthorized cavity search while visiting her husband at a California state prison, despite medical scans showing no evidence of contraband. The search, which violated the terms of a warrant and included a sexual assault by a male doctor, left her traumatized and denied her the opportunity to see her husband. She later filed a lawsuit and reached a $5.6 million settlement with the California Department of Corrections and other parties, who denied wrongdoing. In this story the 4th amendment, search and seizure which protects people right against searches and seizures without probable cause. In Christina’s story her 4th amendment right was broken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
New York Times - Florida Court Rejects Free Speech Argument in Book Removal Case

# data[].attributes.headline
Elise-Children's book removed from school library in Florida

# data[].attributes.subject
Elise-Children's book removed from school library in Florida

# data[].attributes.body
The book “and Tango Makes Three” is a children’s picture book based on a real story about two male penguins in a zoo that “adopt’ and raise a baby penguin called Tango. This very book has been removed from the library in Escambia County school in Florida. The authors of the book along with a student from the school filed a lawsuit against the school board accusing them of being discriminatory against same-sex representation and not respecting their first amendment rights. The school board defended themselves by saying that they were aloud to pick which books were to be put in the library and that it was not a matter of violating freedom of speech. Eventually the judge came to the decision that the first amendment did not play a role in the case and therefore did not help prove the plaintiff’s accusation. The judge stated, “Either way, the First amendment offers Plaintiffs no protection.”

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains how many protections in the Bill of Rights extend to people in the United States regardless of citizenship. For example, undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment, meaning the government must follow lawful procedures before depriving them of liberty. However, immigration enforcement often limits these rights through policies such as expedited removal and by denying government-appointed lawyers in civil immigration cases.

Supporters of extending constitutional rights to undocumented immigrants argue that the language of the Bill of Rights protects “persons,” not just citizens, and that due process ensures fairness and prevents abuses of power. Opponents counter that stronger restrictions are necessary for immigration enforcement and national security, and they argue that broad protections could slow deportations and strain the legal system. This ongoing debate highlights how the Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process is interpreted differently depending on one’s perspective about immigration policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jean-Luc-High court allows lethal injection, DNA evidence challenges

# data[].attributes.subject
Jean-Luc-High court allows lethal injection, DNA evidence challenges

# data[].attributes.body
A study from 2005 showed that people who take lethal injection suffer from suffocation, muscle cramps and burning pain in the veins. A recent case has been brought up arguing  that lethal injections were too painful and therefore cruel which violates the 8th amendment.  Most states don’t agree with this but in Florida all executions are delayed until the supreme court inspects this issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Court Allows Lethal Injection, DNA Evidence Challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that death row inmates may file last-resort challenges to lethal injections, citing them as cruel and unusual punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
We can see the first amendment, freedom of religion relating to current events through Trump’s wants for the right of prayer in public schools. He adds that it would align with freedom of religion because you can pray to whatever religion you want. The department of education agrees with the president and his want to “bring back prayer” in public schools.

On the other hand, there is record that in 1962 the supreme court ruled against state sponsored prayer, because it conflicted with the first amendment. Trump continued, stating that prayer groups, or reading religious text outside of instructional time should be awarded as a right. He believes that the school system is teaching kids an “anti-religious” state of mind and that a country without religion is not a strong country.

-Agathe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump says he’ll direct Education Department to protect praying in public school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trump reiterated plans to protect religious freedom in schools, a promise he made throughout the 2024 campaign.

# data[].attributes.headline
Milo- Court Rejects Execution of Child Rape, Reduces Damages Against Exxon

# data[].attributes.subject
Milo- Court Rejects Execution of Child Rape, Reduces Damages Against Exxon

# data[].attributes.body
In 2008, a 8-year-old daughter got raped by her 43 year old stepfather in Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy, the stepfather, was sentenced to death but when he went to court, he won 5-3 and never got executed.

In 1988, there was a massive oil spill on the coast of Alaska known as the Exxon Valdez spill. 4 lives were taken and it affected 1,300 miles of the Alaskan coastline. There was also the deaths of 2,800 sea otters, hundreds of seals, unknown numbers of salmon and hundreds of thousands of seabirds. As a result, Alaska got awarded $2.5 billion for punitive damages but it was cut to $500 million on a 5-3 vote after they went to court.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by DIAMOND NAGA SIU, goes over a lawsuit the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation filed in federal court in Wisconsin in May about the executive order signed by Trump, in which Justice Department is defending. The order put in place was that churches and religious groups taking part in political activities most charities cannot, which the people suing claim this order doesn't actually do what he said it will do.

The Justice Department claims rather than removing their restrictions entirely, the Order directs the Government not to take adverse action against religious organizations that it would not take against other organizations in the enforcement of these restrictions. This lawsuit also states that the order would require the IRS to remove taxing from religious organisations (mainly churches). Further stating that the order was only meant to benefit religious groups.

In response, Trump said that the filing of the order was misunderstood and watered down before its signing, allowing for discrimination of LGBTQ+ members.

I feel the original intention of the EO was to give more power to religious organisations, such as churches, "giving preference to religion over non-religion", while allowing these boosted power communities to "discriminate against gays and lesbians." This may also show his perspective on humanity, feeling the church is the almighty, and being gay is bad (just like way back Europe). Knowing not many people would like this he tried to cover up what it actually was about to protect himself from backlash.

The amendment involved is freedom of religion, which the implications here can vary depending on how religious you are. For example, if you are very religious, you most likely support this amendment, and think this executive order is great, as it benefits you. Although, if you are not religious, even if you support the amendment, you may find that religious organizations shouldn't get more power over other groups/ think it's unfair. Overall you perspective on this situation can depend of how much it can benefit you, or how much it relates to you.

# data[].attributes.headline
how this article shows the use of amendment 5,6,7 

# data[].attributes.subject
how this article shows the use of amendment 5,6,7 

# data[].attributes.body
In this interview, President Trump says that he wasn’t sure everyone deserves due process rights, openly questioning the Constitution. This centers around a young man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador and imprisoned without communication. This woudl directly violate the Fifth Amendment, it protects the people from being deprived of liberty without due process. This also connects to the Sixth Amendment, which ensures someone to the right to a fair and speedy trial aswell as the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump says he doesn’t know if he backs constitutional due process rights in new interview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump is circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in a new interview that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by ASSOCIATED PRESS, speaks about the Shurtleff V. Boston case. A unanimous vote by the Supreme Court in 2022, that ruled that Boston had violated an activist named Harold Shurtleff's rights of freedom of speech, by denying his request to put up a christian flag outside the City Hall. Justice Stephen Breyer accused the city of discriminating against Shurtleff's because of his religion, as prior to the rejection of the installation of the christian flag, the city approved 284 consecutive requests to fly flags. The lower courts supported the city's decision, but the high court disagreed. Breyer wrote that the case depended on whether the flag-flying is an act of the government, where Boston can do whatever it wants, or if it depended on a private party, in this case, Shurleff. Justice Breyer concluded that the city's lack of involvement in flag selection on crafting the flags messages lead the Supreme Court to classify the flag raisings as a private speech, and ruled in favor of Shurtleff. But, nothing prevented Boston from changing its policies going forward.

The city confirmed that even though the case didn't go their way, they would not be changing any policies.

Through this case, we observe that the first amendment is being involved. Shurtleff is being denied the right to express his religious beliefs, a clear violation of his rights of Freedom of Religion, and in a way and also his Freedom of Expression.