Supreme Court Bill of Rights cases. by Cooper Sundby

Tinker v. Des Moines Feb. 24, 1969

csundby2 — 2023-12-14 22:05:32 UTC

Students wore armbands displaying a peace symbol to promote the idea of peace in the Vietnam war. They were told they couldn't wear these and the parents sued the school saying that they censored their first amendment right and the students won the case. The 1st amendment was expanded to allow students on school property full right to promote their beliefs and ideas. The case impacted out freedom of speech and expression while banning the restraint of expression.

Mahanoy v. B.L. June. 23, 2021

csundby2 — 2023-12-14 22:12:31 UTC

A student, B.L. Was very disappointed that she didn't make her school's varsity cheerleading team and didn't make her spot on her softball team. Later when she was at her house off-campus. She made a post where she used vulgar language towards the school along with cheerleading and softball while they did an inappropriate hand gesture. She was then kicked off of the varsity team after the school had seen the snapchat story post from before. Her parents then sued the school saying that her 1st amendment rights were violated and the school had limited her freedom of speech. She won the case against the school and was reinstated on the volleyball team. After this case, our first amendment rights for students increased when the supreme court said that we have the right to freedom of speech if we are off-campus and we don't direct it towards a certain person or group. The case positively impacted our right to ideas and freedom of speech and limited school's power of off campus regards.

Korematsu v. U.S. Dec. 18, 1944

csundby2 — 2023-12-14 22:22:15 UTC

After the Pearl Harbor attack. Many Japanese citizens were relocated to internment camps in fear that there could have been spies among them. Korematsu sued the United States saying that his 5th amendment right was violated because what the soldiers did did not incorporate due process and there was no trial afterwards. The court ruled in favor of the U.S. stating that under the circumstances of war it was justifiable as a precaution to protect the country. The 5th amendment right was altered when they said it was justifiable during times of war. This negatively influenced our right of freedom when the soldiers were allowed to unwillingly relocate people without due process.

Ingraham v. Wright. Apr. 19, 1977

csundby2 — 2023-12-14 22:38:26 UTC

Back around the time when this supreme court case was brought up. Students at this and many other school were disciplined by being spanked with a wooden paddle to combat their wrongdoing. After Ingraham beat to the point where he couldn't sit and lost movement of his arm for some, he believed his 8th amendment was being exploited with this cruel and unusual punishment. After it was brought to the court the judges ruled 5-4 with the school saying that it was a school policy and they shouldn't go against an old policy. After this ruling, the interpretation of the 8th amendment was changed when they said that the 8th amendment only applied to criminals in criminal cases, not schoolchildren. This case negatively influenced our right of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and didn't protect us from unusual disciplinary actions from the school.

Mapp v. Ohio. Jun. 20, 1961

csundby2 — 2023-12-15 22:00:34 UTC

Police officers forced entry into the house of Mapp lacking a proper search warrant. They were looking to see if she was harboring a suspected bomber and were looking for him. They did not find him or traces of him but did find a trunk in her basement that was littered with obscene photos. She was arrested and after she sues saying that her 4th amendment rights were violated and they shouldn't be able to search without a warrant. The judges sided with Mapp saying that her 4th amendment rights were heavily violated. After this event, the 4th amendment was interpreted differently by cops needing a judge signed warrant to enter a house and can only arrest if they find what they are looking for, nothing else. Our freedom of privacy was positively influenced when unlawful searches were crack down on and warrants are necessary.

Miranda v. Arizona. Jun. 13, 1966

csundby2 — 2023-12-15 22:12:24 UTC

Ernesto Miranda, an immigrant from Mexico (living in Arizona at the time.) Was identified by a women in a lineup and was accused of assault and rape. After his arrest he was questioned by cops for over 2 hours when they finally got a confession out of him. He brought his case to the supreme court saying that his 5th amendment rights were violated. the court agreed with him and the Miranda rights were created to prevent unfair questioning and forced confessions. Our 5th amendment right were changed when they added the Miranda rights that all cops should tell you during your arrest. This positively affected our rights and equality when cops must tell us our Miranda rights.

Vernonia v. Acton Jun. 26, 1995

csundby2 — 2023-12-15 22:22:09 UTC

When the Vernonia school district adopted a drug testing policy to protect and stop students from using performance enhancing drugs, Acton and his parents refused to do the urinalysis test. This led to the school refusing to let him participate in his school's football program. Acton went to the supreme court saying that his 4th amendment rights were violated because the school has a right to enforce tests with their programs, with drug test being necessary to participate. The judges agreed with the school saying the school has the right to randomly test student athletes. This changed the interpretation of the 4th amendment in a school environment by allowing schools to make certain drug test necessary to do a school sport and allows schools more rights on campus with students. This case positively effects schools by allowing them to test all students keeping them safe but it could negatively effect equal rights between all students and students who do not want to do these tests or any using drugs that don't want to get caught.

Olmstead v. United States Jun. 4, 1928

csundby2 — 2023-12-18 22:06:24 UTC

Federal agents suspected Roy Olmstead was running an illegal liquor business during the prohibition. The agents, without any warrant, installed wiretaps on the phone lines between the street and his office. The agents listened in and found evidence of Roy running a liquor business and was arrested. When he brought his case to the supreme court the judges sided 5-4 with the U.S. saying the wiretaps did not violate his 4th amendment rights. This changes the interpretation of the 4th amendment by allowing wiretaps to be installed without a proper warrant infringing on the privacy of peoples phone calls. This negatively effects our rights to equality by allowing phone calls to be unknowingly listened in upon without a judicial warrant.

Katz v. United States Dec. 18, 1967

csundby2 — 2023-12-18 22:15:29 UTC

Charles Katz was using a public phone booth to transfer gambling information from one state to another. Federal agents had wiretapped the phone booth and arrested him for illegal gambling based on what they heard from the recording. Katz brought the case to the supreme court saying that the device had violated his 4th amendment rights by listening in on a conversation at a public phone booth. The court sided with Charles Katz saying they had to mold the 4th amendment around new and emerging technologies. This changed the interpretation of the 4th amendment by banning the use of wiretaps on public phone systems and new information transfer devices. This positively effected our freedom and opportunity by giving us more privacy on phones and other information transferring devices.

Terry v. Ohio Jun. 10, 1968

csundby2 — 2023-12-18 22:23:44 UTC

Police located and stopped three men on the street who the police suspected of planning a burglary. The officers did not have a search warrant and only suspected them after they lingered around the location. The police searched their person for any weapons and found concealed weapons on two of them before arresting them and convicting them. One of them, Terry, brought the case to the supreme court where they sided with the officers saying that a suspicion search did not violate the 4th amendment. This changed the interpretation of the 4th amendment by allowing officers to search off of suspicion and convict if any contraband is located. This negatively effect out freedom of private ownership by allowing police to violate our privacy and search us based on suspicion of an illegal act.

Carpenter v. U.S. Jun. 22, 2018

csundby2 — 2023-12-18 22:38:16 UTC

In Carpenter county, the supreme court discussed if the seizure of modern technology such as cellphones violated our 4th amendment rights. They talked about if the government can talk to communication providers to provide your physical location on phone GPS. The judges concluded saying that the government must obtain a warrant to gain access to a persons cell phone location and GPS history. This changed out interpretation of the 4th amendment by making warrants necessary for the search of a phones location history through the cell provider and making probable cause needed. This positively effects our 4th amendment right by giving us liberty in what we do and extra privacy on our mobile phones and making the search of our locations unconstitutional without a proper warrant.

Cox v. New Hampshire Mar. 31, 1941

csundby2 — 2023-12-19 22:01:14 UTC

This town in New Hampshire required a license before they could have a parade. Without a license, a group of Jehovah witnesses held a "sidewalk parade." and afterwards were fined for the lack of a license. The Jehovah Witnesses challenged the law and brought it to the supreme court saying that the permit license fee for a parade and them getting shut down without it was unconstitutional and violated their 1st amendment rights. The court unanimously agreed with New Hampshire saying that parade permits protected public safety but they could not regulate the speech used. This ruling changed the interpretation of the 1st amendment by limiting free speech through parades in public settings without a proper permit. this negatively effected our rights to liberty by requiring a license to hold a parade supporting an idea in public.

Morse v. Frederick Jun. 25, 2007

csundby2 — 2023-12-19 22:09:52 UTC

A senior at Juneau-Douglass high school held up a sign during the relay of the Olympic torch that read Bong Hits 4 Jesus. his principle at the school funded activity told him to put the banner away saying it was interpreted as supporting an illegal activity which was illegal and against school code. When he refused the principle took the banner and later suspended him for ten days saying that what he did violated school code. When Frederick brought the case to the supreme court they ruled with the principle saying his action was not protected under the 1st amendment. This changed our interpretation of the 1st amendment under school fundraised activities that out freedom of speech was limited to not breaking school code. This negatively effected our equality and freedom in speech and expression in a public setting while under the rule of a school and school fundraised activity.

Texas v. Johnson Jun. 21, 1989

csundby2 — 2023-12-19 22:21:14 UTC

During the 1984 Republican National Convention, a group of activists including Gregory Lee Johnson marched through Dallas streets protesting. After they had gotten to the City Hall in Dallas, Johnson poured kerosene on an American Flag and Burned it down. Afterwards, under state law, he was arrested and convicted. He argued it was a "symbolic speech" protected under the 1st amendment and won with this argument at the supreme court with the judges saying that while it may be offensive it is protected under the bill of rights. This changed our interpretation of the 1st amendment by allowing the burning of flags as long as it is not considered arson it is a protected symbol of free speech. This positively effected our right to freedom of speech and expression by allowing us to use this and other controversial ways of protest and still be protected under the 1st amendment.

U.S. v. Alvarez Jun. 28, 2012

csundby2 — 2023-12-19 22:38:41 UTC

Xavier Alvarez, who was a member of the water district board in California, talked about how he received a congressional medal of honor when he told a story of how he was a Marine for 25 years and was wounded in battle many times. None of the claims he made at all were true and he had previously been discovered lying about a life story. FBI agents discovered a recording of the meeting and charged him for violating the Stolen Valor act, when in court, his lawyer argued that the act was invalid under the 1st amendment. The court disagreed and fined him $5,000 along with giving him a 3 year probation. When he brought his case to the supreme court saying the Stolen Valor act was unconstitutional and won his case with the judges agreeing with him and saying that while the act was a federal law the 1st amendment overruled it and he has this freedom of speech. This changed our interpretation of the 1st amendment by allowing free speech from public officials including lying about a story and that they are protected under the 1st amendment in the bill of rights. This positively effected equality in speech even thought it might be false it is allowed and protected under our 1st amendment.