# data[].attributes.body
by: Addie Mann

# data[].attributes.body
Include the year, and explain briefly an overall summary of this landmark case. Ie: "In 1965, this case found Mickey Mouse v. Donald Duck in a case concerning ...."

# data[].attributes.body
How did this case rise to the Supreme Court level?

# data[].attributes.body
Explain the premise of the ISSUE -- what is the conflict that brings this to the Supreme Court level?

# data[].attributes.body
Include the vote and rationale for the majority.

(Ie: By a 5-4 vote, the liberal majority issued their ruling premised on the rationale that ...)

# data[].attributes.body
Often, the justices on the losing side issue a rationale why they felt they were right, even though they lost

# data[].attributes.body
How did this case set precedent for other cases, or procedures in the U.S. since then? Did it create a way of life we now live by? Or is this issue still contested (or overturned). Explain what this case has meant, or continues to mean, for the country.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1961, Mapp vs Ohio found Dollree Mapp challenging the state of Ohio in a case concerning evidence obtained during an unlawful search of her home.

# data[].attributes.body
After Mapp was convicted in an Ohio court, she argued that her fourth amendment rights were violated because the police didn't have a warrant. Lower courts rejected her appeals, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to address whether illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in court.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue was whether police could use evidence taken without a warrant, violating the Fourth amendment, and whether this protection applied to both state and federal courts. The case centered on balancing personal rights and police powers.

# data[].attributes.body
By a 6-3 vote, the Court rules in favor of Mapp. The majority said the Exclusionary rule, which bans illegal evidence, must apply to state courts to protect everyone's constitutional rights under the fourteenth amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The dissenting justices thought that banning aid illegally obtained evidence made it harder for police to fight crime. They felt the focus should be on punishing criminals, not how evidence was collected.

# data[].attributes.body
This case made the Exclusionary rule apply to state courts, ensuring stronger protection against unlawful searches. It changed how police and courts handle evidence. It was meant to guard against police abuse and uphold constitutional rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Mapp Vs Ohio influenced many cases involving search and seizure, reinforcing the idea that evidence must be collected legally. It became a cornerstone for protecting individual rights during criminal investigations and shaped how police operate nationwide.

# data[].attributes.body
The case strenghened the fourth amendment and expanded privacy protections, ensuring fairness in the justice system.

# data[].attributes.body
On May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education questioned the constitutionality of racial segregation in schools and the “separate but equal” principle.

# data[].attributes.body
This case rose to the Supreme Court level after several lawsuits, on behalf of Black school children who were denied admittance, lost in lower courts. With the help of the NAACP, they stacked a collection of five separate cases dealing with school segregation and combined them to make the Brown v. Board of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue was focused on school segregation and its constitutionality, like the “separate but equal” standards placed on educational spaces.

# data[].attributes.body
By a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that legal racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional and unequal. It violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment which states that the government cannot deny people equal protection and treatment under the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people believed that this ruling went against legal tradition and that the Court overstepped its constitutional powers.

# data[].attributes.body
The outcome ended legal segregation and allowed all students to have the same access to education, no matter their race.

# data[].attributes.body
This case was a huge step forward in the civil rights movement. Its success inspired and empowered young Black people to fight for their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1954, this Supreme Court case ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Parents were arguing that their children were required to attend different schools based on their race.

# data[].attributes.body
First filed by the Brown family and 12 other black families in Topeka. Five other states had filings of the nature that were added to the Supreme Court Case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Brown Family filed suit because it was forced by the state to segregate its children into racially separate schools, which the state declared were separate but equal.

# data[].attributes.body
9-0 in favor of the plaintiff. They agreed that while the schools were separated they were not created or treated equally.

# data[].attributes.body
unanimous

# data[].attributes.body
This was a pivotal case in American history that enabled all races and monorities equality in attending school free of segregation. Seventy years later it is still being used as a stepping stone for equality in education. There is still much work to do to create true equality, although, without this case, such progress would not be possible.

# data[].attributes.body
]By legally ending the racial segregation of schools. Children began to be offered equal opportunities for their education. While opportunities are still evolving many obstacles were supported by the law and are improving as we progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Brown vs. Board of Education significantly propelled the Civil Rights Movement forward by demonstrating the federal government's commitment to racial equality in education.

# data[].attributes.body
Miranda vs Arizona was a court case in 1966 and it made the it so that law enforcement must tell suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have a attorney before asking them questions them. This ruling protects the 5 Amendment right against self-incrimination and the 6 amendment right to legal counsel, ensuring fair treatment during police interrogations.

# data[].attributes.body
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona for kidnapping and robbery. During a police interrogation he confessed without being informed of his rights to remain silent or have an attorney. Miranda's defense argued that his confession was obtained unconstitutionally. The state courts upheld his conviction and so the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue was whether statements made during a police interrogation could be used as evidence if the suspect had not been told of their constitutional rights.

# data[].attributes.body
5-4

# data[].attributes.body
They argued ruling hindered law enrforcement and protected suspect too much.

# data[].attributes.body
In future cases, courts now exclude statements that were obtained without the suspect being informed of their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Students retained their First Amendment right to free speech in school, even when expressing controversial views through symbolic acts like wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. As long as their expression does not "materially and substantially disrupt" the educational process

# data[].attributes.body
The students planned to wear black armbands to school. They appealed a ruling against them by the U.S. Court of Appeals which led them to bring this case to the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
The case involved a group of students in Iowa who were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in 1965. The students' parents sued the school district for violating their children's right to free speech.

# data[].attributes.body
Ruled 7–2 in favor of the students

# data[].attributes.body
Justice Abe Fortas, stated that school officials cannot prohibit speech based on the suspicion that it might disrupt the learning environment.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1967 the court voted against state laws banning interracial marriage. Due to the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia, which resulted in Mildred and Richard being arrested. The court stated that this violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process clause, and voted against it, therefore ending the remaining ban on interracial marriage in other states.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court of Virginia did not vote in favor of the Lovings, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and claimed the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Conflict over interracial marriage, with some opposed and some realizing that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
(9-0) Unanimous

# data[].attributes.body
Claimed it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment clauses.

# data[].attributes.body
None

# data[].attributes.body
The case highlighted the importance of an individual's autonomy, and likely helped the decisions of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

# data[].attributes.body
And Chase Whitaker*

# data[].attributes.body
By Mariia and Fiona

# data[].attributes.body
The Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoped to challenge the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited not just the sale but the use of contraceptives. Their distribution of birth control made them accessories to a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary of the Case Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. The Court ruled that a state law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Not allowing people to acess contraceptives. Also that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples

# data[].attributes.body
Justice Black, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented. Unconvinced by the majority's liberal reasoning, Black held that there was no way to conclude that the Constitution contained a right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Unconstitutionally invaded the privacy rights of married couples.

# data[].attributes.body
7-2 in favor

# data[].attributes.body
The case was brought up by Norma McCorvey, a woman from Texas who sought to terminate her pregnancy but was unable to do so due to the state's restrictive abortion laws. she was not allowed to get an abortion unless her life was in danger. She challenged the Texas law, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated her right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The major issue in Roe v. Wade was whether the Constitution recognizes a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. And women's right to privacy and the state's interests in regulating abortions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Norma McCorvey.

# data[].attributes.body
Now the constitution stipulates the right to private life for married couples. you cannot be convicted of any use of contraceptives.

# data[].attributes.body
Justices William Rehnquist and White dissented

# data[].attributes.body
Rendered these laws unconstitutional making abortions much more vast and safe. Also made it easier for women to get abortions

# data[].attributes.body
This case is still very relevant, and; people protest to continue to make it easier to obtain abortions.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 authored by state Rep. Stephen F. Freind, The ruling favored Casey 6-3

# data[].attributes.body
In 1992 they challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania abortion control act of 1982 that were unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.body
Among the provisions were requirements for a waiting period, spousal notice, and (for minors) parental consent prior to undergoing an abortion procedure.

# data[].attributes.body
6-3 - The Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by Roe v. Wade

# data[].attributes.body
All the provisions were unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against Pennsylvania's enforcement of them.

# data[].attributes.body
Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented, arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. They believed there was no constitutional right to abortion, as it wasn't grounded in the text or history of the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush. They concluded that the inconsistencies in counting votes violated the Equal Protection Clause and that this meant that the voters were being treated unequally. This stopped the recount.

# data[].attributes.body
The decision established the undue burden standard meaning states could impose abortion restrictions as long as they did not place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose.

# data[].attributes.body
The election between George Bush and Al Gore in the year 2000 was extremely close in voter count. It all came down to Florida where it would come down to just a few hundred votes. Florida, as any state would, started a recount. However, because there were different ballot designs, some counties had to do a manual recount. Bush decided to file a lawsuit that claimed that the inconsistencies in counting violated the Equal Protection Clause.

# data[].attributes.body
This set the precedent that any time there are different methods of counting votes in counties, recounts can be stopped, giving the win, possibly unfairly, to a candidate.

# data[].attributes.body
Overturned the “separate but equal” ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case. Issued the Brown v Board of Education II (Brown II) case which forced schools to begin the desegregation process and set the rules for this process. This case paved the way for other desegregation efforts outside of schools.

# data[].attributes.body
The lack of uniform standards in the Florida recount process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as ballots were being counted differently in different counties. This led to unequal treatment of voters. This and that there was no time to recount all of the votes meant that the majority voted in favor of Bush.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation 5-4.

# data[].attributes.body
Those who did not rule in favor of Bush believed that there should be a recount. Justice Stevens argued that the recount was not a violation of the Equal Protection Act, and that preventing a recount went against federalist and republican ideals.

# data[].attributes.body
The case is prevalent to the world today as it can be applied to future elections. The case is applicable to the election of 2020 for example, where republican candidate Donald J. Trump wished for a recount in battleground states such as Arizona.