4B Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Group B by Matt Ryan https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt en-us 2017-03-31 15:14:00 UTC 2025-12-28 00:17:50 UTC hello@padlet.com Brown V. Topeka Board of Education (1954) https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034244 1. Brown had been denied permission to attend an elementary school only 5 blocks from her house in Topeka, Kansas.
2.  A) Led by Thurgood Marshall, a NAACP litigator who would be appointed to the Court in 1967, Brown's attorneys argued that the operation of separate schools, based on race, was harmful to African-American children. Extensive testimony was provided to support the contention that legal segregation resulted in both fundamentally unequal education and low self-esteem among minority students. The Brown family lawyers argued that segregation by law implied that African Americans were inherently inferior to whites. For these reasons, they asked the Court to strike down segregation under the law.
2. B) Attorneys for Topeka argued that the separate schools for nonwhites in Topeka were equal in every way, and were in complete conformity with the Plessy standard. Buildings, the courses of study offered, and the quality of teachers were completely comparable. In fact, because some federal funds for Native Americans only applied at the nonwhite schools, some programs for minority children were actually better than those offered at the schools for whites. They pointed to the Plessy decision of 1896 to support segregation and argued that they had in good faith created “equal facilities,” even though races were segregated. Furthermore, they argued, discrimination by race did not harm children.
3. On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown V. Topeka Board Of Education Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was unconstitutional because no citizen of U.S. shall be denied or refused to denial of property, person of life, and liberty without due process.
4. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decision supporting that racial segregation in public school is against the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the laws to any person within their jurisdictions. The decision declared that separate educational facilities for white and African American students were inherently unequal.




]]> 2017-03-31 17:38:54 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034244 Schenck V. United States ( 1919) https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034503 1. Schenck distributed pamphlets stating that the draft was a monstrosity and told those drafted to "not submit to intimidation". It was "involuntary servitude" which was illegal under the the 13th Amendment. He however pushed for only peaceful protesting, like petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. This act created the first wartime draft of United States citizens in history. It registered all men 20 to 45. 
2. The one side was that free speech cannot be limited. He was acting under the 1st Amendment  and by that power granted to him, did nothing wrong.  The other believed that this sort of "provocative" speech is a "clear and present danger". Him speaking out against the draft causing a negative mindset against the war. He violated the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination. Schenck's side fired back with saying the Espionage Act violated the first amendment. 
3. He was found guilty on all accounts. The Espionage Act does not violate the first amendment. The court believed Schenck was determined to undermine the draft. He violated the Espionage Act and created insubordination in wartime.
4. People realized that free speech was not unlimited. The "clear and present danger" test was in effect for the next 50 years. It was the standard for the first amendment and how far it could go. It was later replaced with "imminent lawless action" test to protect more free speech. ]]> 2017-03-31 17:40:02 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034503 Roe V. Wade (1973)- Kalin Bennington https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034743 1. Jane Roe was a pregnant and unmarried woman in Texas resident in 1970 was denied her right to an abortion. 
2. Defense- The defense believed that as well as being an ethical/moral dilemma, getting an abortion violated a Texas law that stated that abortions were illegal unless the mother's life was in danger
Prosecution- Roe believed that her right to an abortion violated several of her rights including the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 
3. In the end the Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
4. There was a strong drive (which is still very much apparent today) between whether abortion is morally/anatomically correct. However, the ability for a woman to openly receive an abortion enables more safer procedures and a bigger support for the use of contraceptives. Also, Planned Parenthood now has a strong support systems and has multiple free services for women, including free cancer screenings. ]]> 2017-03-31 17:40:56 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034743 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1964) https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034973 1. Students at Hazelwood east high school, in journalism II class made a newspaper article. Two topics were on teen pregnancy and a divorce from a teens perspective. The students names were changed. The principal did not think these topics were appropriate and thought the father of the divorce story should get to comment. All in all the article was deleted, without the students knowing. (Brought before The U.S. District Court, it was concluded  the students rights were not violated. Next, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the ruling was reversed. The school appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.)
2. The students argued their first amendments rights were violated. The School argued they had the right to delete it.
3. The school won, the Supreme Court ruled the school has the right to limit school speech if it doesn't follow the schools education mission. Public schools have the right to limit speech.
4. The impact is students lost some of their rights this day. They lost press and speech rights at school.

]]> 2017-03-31 17:41:56 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164034973 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041488 2017-03-31 18:06:53 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041488 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041496 2017-03-31 18:06:54 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041496 Korematsu V. United States https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041699 1. Fred Korematsu refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home and report to a relocation camp for Japanese Americans. He was arrested and convicted. After losing in the Court of Appeals, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order.
2.  Korematsu refused to do wartime n united states took it to court.
3.
The Supreme Court upheld the order excluding persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war zone during World War II. Three justices dissented. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court. He began with the observation that legal restrictions on the rights of a single racial group will always be “suspect” and that “courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.” However, they are not necessarily unconstitutional.
4.  It held that the order leading to the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not unconstitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. It was a surprising conclusion given that Justice Black also wrote that any use of legal restriction based on race is "immediately suspect." However, the court found that such limitations are valid when dictated by public necessity, but they must withstand rigid judicial scrutiny in order to be upheld. The restrictions imposed upon Japanese Americans were deemed by the Court to be necessary for public security during time of war.


]]> 2017-03-31 18:07:40 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164041699 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164043315 2017-03-31 18:14:30 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/6bhiad6axvtt/wish/164043315