# data[].attributes.body
1. State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump
2.  President’s Executive Order on immigration
3. pending case and i believe that the court would rule against the case
4. pending
5. pending
6. current supreme court
7. January 28, 2017 I believe they should be more strict with the immigration but not as bad as Donald trump.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case name: Delaware Just Got Sued by 21 Other States Over Unclaimed Checks

2. Reason for lawsuit: Delaware is being accused for violating federal law by snatching up $400 million unclaimed checks that should have gone to other states.

3. What court will hear this case? Supreme court will hear and rule the case

4. What year: 2016

5. Delaware and global financial transaction firm MoneyGram are accused by sending uncashed MoneyGram to Delaware. I think that Delaware would probably have to pay the other states back somehow. Delaware also violated the federal law. “Paxton said under federal law, the unclaimed checks should go to the state where the financial transaction was initiated. That means if an unclaimed official check purchased in Texas remained unclaimed, the proceeds should go to Texas.” I also believe that Delaware should be

6. I think that the state Delaware should have to pay the other states back.

# data[].attributes.body
1. United States V. Texas
2. Civil Rights - Immigration and Naturalization: Permanent Resident
3. Conservative
4. 4-4
5. No opinions, all agreed to have an equally divided vote.
6. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito.
7. 2016
8. Yes, they're agreeing to uphold the law in question as constitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
1.       What is the name of the case? Texas vs. the Feds

2.       What was the reason for the lawsuit? Texas felt that the Feds were not providing deportation relief to millions of people.

3.       What did the Supreme Court rule on the case? A loss. A district judge in Dallas dismissed a lawsuit over the resettlement of Syrian refugees here.

4.       How many justices were in favor and how many were against the ruling? 4-4

5.       Were there any dissenting opinions among the justices, if so, what were they? The states say the president infringed on congressional authority over immigration laws.

6.       Which justices are/were on the court when this case was ruled on? U.S. District court Judge

7.       Do you agree with the ruling of the case? Explain your answer. I don’t agree with the district court dismissing Texas’ attempt to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the state.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Missouri v Illinois & Sanitary Department of Chicago
2. The State of Missouri brought a suit against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, Illinois to restrain an anticipated discharge of Chicago sewage through an artificial channel into a river that emptied into a tributary of the Mississippi River, in the State of Illinois. A demurrer to the bill was overruled. A supplemental bill alleged that the drainage canal had been opened and put into operation.
3. The Court dismissed the bill without prejudice.
4. 6/3
5. Yes, “Both the demurrers should be sustained, and the bill dismissed, without prejudice to a further application, as against the sanitary district, if authorized by the state of Missouri. My brothers Harlan and White concur with me in this dissent.”

6. John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Melville Fuller, David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White, Rufus Wheeler Peckham, Joseph McKenna

7. 1900-1901

8. Yes, it seems fair because of the effect the sewage has on the state.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Kansas vs. Nebraska and Colorado
2.Rights to the waters of the Republican River Basin
3.The supreme court did not tell Nebraska to change the way they use the river
4.6-3
5.Justice Thomas filed and opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined, and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to Part III.
6. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas,
7. October 14, 2014
8. I do but i don't, because the river goes through Nebraska and Kansas so both states have control of what the do with it but it also effects the state that's under it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Texas and Louisiana vs Sabine River Authority
2. The SRA decided to release millions of gallons of water from a spillway on the Sabine River and it caused damage in Louisiana and Texas.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the flood regime could be considered a taking under federal law and sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration.
4. NA
5. The Justices were having difficulty on finding the exact conditions under which flooding could be considered a taking. So their opinions were all different.
6. NA
7. This case was heard in 2016
8. I agree with what the Justices did because I do not believe a flooding issue is in the Constitution and therefore the flooding caused by the SRA should be a problem for the lower courts not the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Nebraska and Oklahoma vs Colorado
2. Nebraska and Oklahoma are complaining about Colorado's legalizing marijuana.
3. This case is still pending, but the Supreme Court will decide.
4. I predict this case to not go in favor of Nebraska and Oklahoma. That Colorado will be able to keep their bill in play. Allowing marijuana to be used recreational brings in money to the state. Even if Colorado didn't pass that bill people would still find a way to use it and purchase it, might as well make it legal so it brings in money.
5. I would choose to allow Colorado to keep the bill. Like I previously stated, it brings money in. According to NPR.com, Marijuana sales have brought in close to 1 billion dollars in 2015. That could be used for numerous things.

# data[].attributes.body
1. New York Vs. New Jersey
2. The compact granted New York the rights to all islands in the water channel separating the two states (including both Ellis Island and Liberty Island, but granting New Jersey the rights to half of the water channel.
3. Ruled in favor of New Jersey.
4. 6-3 Ruling.
5. Justice John Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas
6. Ruth Ginsburg, David Scouter, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, John Stevens, William Rehnquist, Sandra O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy.
7. 1998
8. Yes I agree with the ruling, the compact favored New Jersey first and it should stay with its first choice.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Montana v Wyoming and North Dakota
2. The state of Montana believed that Wyoming violated the Yellow Stone River Compact by leaving less water for Montana's use.
3. The court ruled in favor of Wyoming and North Dakota.
4. 7-1 ruling, against Montana
5. Clarence Thomas- "Montana's allegation fails to state a claim because more efficient irrigation systems are permissible under the compact so long as the conserved water is used to irrigate the same acreage watered in 1950."
6. Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Elana Kagan
7. It was decided on May 2, 2011
7. Yes I agree on the case, because Wyoming and Montana signed a compact deciding how the states would use their portions of water. And Wyoming never violated that compact.

# data[].attributes.body
1. United States vs. Lopez (1995)
2. Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
3. the Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority over the states by passing a law banning gun possession in or near schools.
4. 5 out of 9, and four opposed.
5.

1. The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those "significantly affect" interstate commerce.

2. In considering the question, a court must consider not the individual act being regulated (a single instance of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e., the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools).

3. A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a "rational basis" for so concluding.

6. Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
7. April 26, 1995
8. Yes I agree because I don't feel as if school should be a place where you have to feel as if to bring a handgun to school. As if you were walking down a street, seems like a more reasonable cause to carry a handgun.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Washington v Texas
2.  Jackie Washington was sentenced to 50 years in prison for murder. At trial he stated that Charles Fuller had already been convicted for that same murder and that Charles was the one who actually shot the victim and that Washington was trying to stop the shooting. Washington argued that not allowing Fuller to testify on his behalf violated his Sixth Amendment right.
3. The court ruled against Washington.
4. There was 6 justices in favor of the ruling and 3 were against the ruling.
5. Yes, there was and it was that Justice John M. Harlan said that Washington's right to due process was violated..
6. Justice's Harlan, Black, Douglas, Stewart, Brennan, White, Warren, Clark, Fortas.
7. It was decided in June 12, 1967.
8. No, i do not agree with the ruling because it violated Washington's Sixth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Obergefell vs Hodges

2. To gain the right to marry the same-sex

3. They ruled that denying same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

4. 5 in favor 4 against

5. Justice Kennedy believes that marriage is only meant to create a stable environment for children.   Justice Roberts believes the same thing as Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia believes that tradition should be followed as opposed to liberty. Justice Thomas believes that liberty is not withheld by withholding same-sex marriage. Justice Alito believes the same thing as Justice Thomas.

6. Roberts. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

7. 2015

8. I do agree with the ruling for the case, because the Constitution states that there is right to liberty, which is the state of being free within society form oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. To keep two people from being married because of their gender is to inhibit one’s personal liberty.

# data[].attributes.body
1.       Montana v Wyoming and North Dakota

2.       Montana wants to limit the amount of water that Wyoming and North Dakota farmers use because Montana claims they don’t receive enough water from the Yellowstone because Wyoming and North Dakota farmers use too much.

3.       In favor of Wyoming and North Dakota

4.       7-1

5.       Majority opinion by Clarence Thomas saying no, Wyoming didn’t violate the Yellowstone River Compact

6.       Justice’s Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Elana Kagan

7.       2011

8.       Yes I agree on the ruling. In 1950 Wyoming and Montana signed the Yellowstone River Compact which decided how the two states would share water. Wyoming has not violated that compact.

# data[].attributes.body
1.      The U.S. government is being sued by 10 different states over transgender bathrooms and what gender identity entails in the school setting. It does not have a case name yet because the case is still pending.

2.      The law suit was derived by states who believed there was an issue amongst transgenders using the bathrooms they felt fit their personality verses the bathroom that is based on their genitalia.

3.      The Supreme Court has yet to hear this case due to the fact that it is still pending.

4.      I hope justices will recognize that people are people and we are not always defined by our physical traits.

7.      I personally believe/hope the Supreme Court will recognize that times are changing and this will grow to be a more reoccurring problem and recognize that all people have rights. I do not see the harm in transgender individuals using the bathroom they feel they coincide with. While yes, body parts are what have defined us from the ultrasound revealing of our physical gender and the very minute we were born, we have to try to understand those who feel they are trapped in the wrong body.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) McCulloch V. Maryland
2.) Maryland tried to impede operation of a branch of the second bank of the U.S. by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not in Maryland
3.) The supreme court ruled that congress had implied powers under the clause of Article 1 section 8 by the constitution to make the second Bank and Maryland didn't have the power to tax the bank
4.) Marshall was against it 4 were not against it
5.) yes, The court ruled that the bank was constitutional and the Maryland tax was unconstitutional
6.) John Marshall, Bushrod Washington, William Johnson Henry B. Livingston, Thomas Todd Gabriel Duvall, and Joseph Story
7.) 1819
8.) yes, Maryland shouldn't be able to tax the second bank of the U.S. because it doesn't have the power.

# data[].attributes.body
(1) This case is currently going so there is not a name for it as this moment. (6)This case started in May of 2016. (2) In this case about five states are suing the federal government over transgender Health-Care protections. The Five states – Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, and Kentucky – also including a group of Christian health-care organizations sued the federal government so they could try to block regulations that required doctors to perform gender transition treatments and procedures that go against the doctor’s beliefs. I believe that in the court it will go where they wouldn’t have to deal with that patient or patients. (7) I believe that when it comes to surgery, giving treatments, and such involved that surgeons have a job and they shouldn’t refuse someone based on whether they are transgender.  I believe as their job as a doctor they should not be allowed to discriminate or not do what a patient asks of them. They should set aside their beliefs and do what is best for their patients.

# data[].attributes.body
1.       NAME: State of Vermont v. State of New York et al.

2.       REASON: Vermont claimed New York and the International Paper Company were discharging waste in areas that led to a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek (part of Vermont).

3.       RULING(1/2): The Supreme Court made a ruled in favor of Vermont.

4.       RULING(2/2): Nine justices were in favor of Vermont, so the ruling was conservative.

5.       DISSENTING: None.  All justices were in favor of Vermont.

6.       JUSTICES: Harry Andrew Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell Jr., William Rehnquist, William Orville Douglas, William Joseph Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Bryon Raymond White, Thurgood Marshall, and Warren Earl Burger.

7.       YEAR: The case was heard in 1972 and decided in 1974.

8.       POSITION: I agree with the Supreme Court.  New York was handling waste in a manner that was interfering and contaminating some of Vermont’s water sources.

# data[].attributes.body
1. California v.  Washington
2. Interstate Relations - Non-real property dispute between states

3. Against the petitioner, to uphold the 21st amendment
4. 9-0
5. No
6. | Hugo Lafayette Black| Felix Frankfurter | William Orville Douglas | Tom Campbell Clark | Earl Warren | John Marshall Harlan II | William Joseph Brennan Jr. | Charles Evans Whittaker | Potter Stewart
7. 1958
8. Yes because they ruled in favor of a constitutional amendment

# data[].attributes.body
1.       New York V. New Jersey

2.       Ellis Island was given to New Jersey in 1834 but New York was given all of the water rights to the channel that Ellis Island was in. Ellis Island was later given to New York and ignored for years. New Jersey wanted their island back since it had been not expressively granted to New York.

3.       The supreme court ruled that New Jersey would get the island

4.       6 justices where for the ruling and 3 were against

5.       J

6.       William Rehnquist, john P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonio Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

7.       1998

8.       Yes I agree with the ruling because New Jersey was originally granted the island and should have had it the whole time

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the name of the case? Nebraska and Oklahoma vs Colorado

2. What was the reason for the lawsuit? To file a bill of complaint over Colorado’s legal Marijuana law

3. What court will hear this case? Supreme Court will hear and rule on this case.

4. What do you predict they will rule on this case? They will probably allow Colorado to keep it recreational because it increases states money, jobs, and taxes, bringing the nation government more money. Also if they take it away it isn’t really going to help the amount of people using in surrounding states, they will still find a way to get it.

5. How would you rule on this case? I wouldn’t make Colorado ban the recreational use of marijuana again because either way people are going to find a way to get it. There is always going to be ways people always have an always will bring it state to state sale to others and it will continue to be used if it is legal or not.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Kansas VS. Colorado.
2. In 1985, Kansas filed suit in the Supreme Court, claiming that Colorado violated the Compact because the new wells in Colorado used too much of the Arkansas River’s water.
3. There was an 8-1  judgement in favor for Colorado.
4. 8 people were in favor for Colorado (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer.) and one was against Colorado (Stevens)
5. Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed with Kansas because a river master was inappropriate because the nature of disputes was legal, not purely technical and to appoint a river master would make it easier to continue litigation.
6. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens.
7. October 4th 2004 - December 7th 2008.
8. I believe that the supreme court should have allowed Kansas's request for a river master.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Name: Obergefell V. Hodges

2. Reason: Same-sex couple wanted to get married and said that it violated the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

3. What did the Supreme Court rule on the case? They legalized gay marriage

4. How many justices were in favor and how many were against the ruling? 5 were in favor & 4 were against.

5. Were there any dissenting opinions among the justices, if so, what were they? Yes. Roberts said, “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.”

6. Which justices are/were on the court when this case was ruled on? Robers, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan

7. In what year was this case heard? 2015

8. I agree with the ruling of the case. I feel that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, whether they are the same sex or not.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Virginia v. Tennessee
2. Settled a boundary dispute based on an agreement ratified by the two states 90 years earlier.
3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tennessee.
4. 8 were in favor. Justice John M. Harlan did not rule.
5. The justices believed the boundary line established by the compact of 1803 is the true boundary between them.
6. Names of Justices: Melville Fuller, Samuel Blatchford, Horace Gray, Howell Jackson, Henry Brown, David Brewer, John Harlan, Stephen Field, and George Shiras Jr.
7. 1893
8. I agree with the ruling. If Virginia didn't want that border with Tennessee then they shouldn't have agreed to the border in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
1) 10 more states sue Obama administration over transgender bathroom directive.
2) These states sued the Obama administration, because some people believe that you should use the restroom based on the gender on your birth certificate, and that it is the gender that you are, even if you identify as the opposite sex.
3) The case is still pending. Based on the constitution, I think they will rule in favor of the transgender community, hence "equal rights".
4) Usually, there are 9 Supreme Court Justices. Last year, a Republican Supreme Court Justice died, so now there is an even number of justices. 4 Republican, and 4 Democrat. Since there is an even number of  both parties, the ruling could go either way. Although, I hope they rule in favor of the LGBTQ community, and realize that transgender individuals are not causing any harm to anybody else. One Republican father of a young girl, was seen on the news, outraged because he did not want a transgender female going into the same restroom as his little girl and 'watch her'. Yes, some transgender people have not had a sex change operation, but I'm sure their intentions are not to watch a little girl go potty. If a pedophile wanted to go into a bathroom to watch children then they would do it. It doesn't mean they are transgender. This man was using the equal bathrooms as an excuse for being biased against transgender individuals. The transgender community feels trapped in their own body. Being able to use the facilities in the restroom that you identify as, gives them that 'out' of finally being able to be who they really are, and not what they look like externally. This is not 1920. Women have gained rights, African Americans have gained rights, and now gay marriage is legal, and its time for transgender rights.
7) This case was heard in 2016

# data[].attributes.headline
You cannot do the same case as someone else in the same class period.

# data[].attributes.subject
You cannot do the same case as someone else in the same class period.

# data[].attributes.body
-Mrs. Gursky