<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Landmark Supreme Court Case by Estrada, Michael - 0623219</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2024-02-29 16:45:18 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2024-03-06 15:07:22 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900890083</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Miranda Rights<br>Suspects must be forewarned that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>The Miranda v. Arizona decision was instrumental in making sure that people accused of a crime are aware of all their rights and have equal access to counsel, even if they can not afford it.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/miranda.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 16:46:55 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900890083</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>In re Gault (1967)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900893166</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Juvenile Criminals are subject to the same rights as adults.<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that juvenile criminal defendants are entitled to Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://criminal-justice.laws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/75/2019/12/4d9fe01a99d5d.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 16:49:16 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900893166</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900898312</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Separate But Equal<br>Established SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, As a result, southern states strengthen segregation laws.<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>Plessy v. Ferguson was important because it essentially established the constitutionality of racial segregation. As a controlling legal precedent, it prevented constitutional challenges to racial segregation for more than half a century until it was finally overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brownv.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/images/1896-supreme-court.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 16:53:04 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900898312</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900973337</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>14th amendment&nbsp;<br>In 1868, the 14th amendment guaranteed that anyone born in the United States, regardless of race, was a U.S. citizen. The amendment overturned dred scott<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>In this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/640484763/photo/a-copy-of-frank-leslies-illustrated-newspaper-has-a-front-page-story-on-the-supreme-court-anti.jpg?s=612x612&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=ItO3oXY9vdHAdIcK0kg44ms1IvgKFmXTV5Pi355cEdo=" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 17:49:30 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900973337</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900974979</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Jim Crow<br>It was the beginning of the end of Jim Crow laws in the south.<br><br>Case significance&nbsp;<br>In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the "separate but equal" principle set forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://cdn.britannica.com/25/91825-050-6828171F/George-EC-Hayes-Thurgood-Marshall-court-James-May-17-1954.jpg?w=500&amp;h=500" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 17:51:01 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900974979</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>United States v. Nixon (1974)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900979100</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>14th Amendment rule of law<br>Decision proved that even the president is not above the “rule of law”&nbsp;<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/101120/images/nixonresign.jpeg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 17:54:17 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900979100</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900981157</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1st Amendment<br>Ruled that school newspaper are sponsored by the school and articles not directly reflecting the views of the school for learning purpose can be delete.<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Supreme Court held that schools may restrict what is published in student newspapers if the papers have not been established as public forums</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/95d02b7/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3997x3036+0+0/resize/880x668!/quality/90/?url=http://npr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com/69/fb/7afb15634ac1bd2dafee718ef386/st-louis-post-dispatch-sun-aug-21-1983.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 17:56:10 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900981157</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900983477</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>6th amendment<br>Established “The Gideon Rule” guarantees counsel/attorney/lawyer to all poor person facing a felon charge.<br><br>Case Significance&nbsp;<br>In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.crimemuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Gideon-v-Wainwright-Clarence-Earl-Gideon-209x300.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 17:58:02 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900983477</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Marburg v. Madison (1803)</title>
         <author>0623219</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900987791</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Tenth amendment&nbsp;<br>The Supreme Court established judicial review the ability to review laws, cases decision, etc. and judge their constitutionally.<br><br>Case significance&nbsp;<br>Marbury v. Madison firmly established that the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to determine the constitutionality and validity of the acts of the other two branches of government – a concept that is a fundamental characteristic of American government.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://kanopy.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=cover,height=900,width=1600/https://static-assets.kanopy.com/video-images/963acae5-e2ed-4f20-bf6b-920c35ff668e.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2024-02-29 18:01:46 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0623219/6z3o5xh043ljii08/wish/2900987791</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
