-date

-backround info

-Amendment

-Impact of the ruling on the amendment: How did the -interpretation of the amendment change, expand, or stay the same?

-Founding ideal(s) connected to the case: How did the case impact (positively or negatively) equality, rights, liberty, opportunity, or democracy?

-This was a case that regarded cruel and unusual punishment as in death penalty for discrimination.

-8th amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment expanded because states revised the law to make sure that the death penalty wasn't discriminating.

-This positively impacted the right to equality, getting rid of discrimination in this case from the death penalty

-Gregg committed a robbery and murder and was sentenced to death. Gregg challenged his sentence saying that it violated his 8th amendments rights if he was sent to death

-8th and 14th amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment stayed the same as it was decided in a 7-2 vote that the death penalty did not violate the 14th and 8th Amendment rights

-The case positively impacted rights and equality because it would give equal rights to everyone who would receive the death penalty would get is as it was deemed that it violated no rights, like the right to an uncruel and usual punishment.

-Ingraham was heading to class when an assistant principal stopped him a said he was tardy though he had 2 minutes to get to class. When Ingraham said this he was sent to administration to get paddled on his butt, but he refused and was paddled 20 times, his friend Andrews was paddled on the arm back, and neck, 8-10 students were there too, and had experienced the same thing.

-8th amendment

-The impact of the ruling was that the school did not need to get permission from the federal court to continue with the punishment.

-The case negatively impacted their rights because it gave the schools more rights to establish corporal punishment when it was wrong, unusual, cruel, and unjust.

-After Pearl Harbour Japanese Americans were sent to relocation camps. Korematsu stayed at home, fighting the law, and was arrested and said it violated his rights in the 4th and 5th amendments

-4th and 5th amendments

- The interpretation of the amendment was expanded, ruling that they were at war, so his rights were outweighed by the war. this made another way to view how these amendments could be viewed and how it would be seen if this were to happen again

- The case negatively affected the right to equality because he was never against the U.S, let alone a soldier against the U.S

-Students of Des Moines Independent Community School District wanted a truce for the Vietnam War, so they showed their protest against the war by wearing black armbands. The school dress code policy was changed to not allow the students to wear armbands. Some students continued with this protest and were later suspended, more students joined the protest and were suspended, so parents sued the school because of the student's suspension.

-1st amendment

- The interpretation of the amendment expanded because it gave a better interpretation of how the First Amendment can be used for speech and protest.

-The case positively impacted rights because it expanded on the right to speech.

-A student of Mahanoy Area High School failed to make the varsity cheer team. In response to this, she made a post on her Snapchat story saying f*** school f*** softball F*** cheer, f*** everything. Coaches saw this response and kicked her off of the Junior Varsity team. B.L., The student, sued the school saying it violated her 1st Amendment rights

-1st Amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment expanded because it shows how schools can violate or lessen the First Amendment right to speech through suspension

- The case positively impacted their rights because it shows that schools cant prohibit what you say online, keeping the 1st amendment right to speech kept.

-Police officers arrested Ernesto Miranda in his house for an allegation of rape and kidnapping. Police officers questioned him without any connection or confirmation of this allegation. When Ernesto wrote a confession, it stated how he was never informed that an attorney would be with him in court.

-5th ammendment

- The interpretation of the amendment stayed the same as nothing changed about this amendment, as it was something the police officers chose or forgot to do, causing the violation of the 5th Amendment. This would cause 0 change in the amendment

-The case negatively affected his rights and opportunities, as all people arrested should get the opportunity and right to a provided attorney.

-A special provision of Massachusetts law Allowed the Attorney General to Start legal proceedings against an "obscene" book. Memoirs of the book "A Woman of Pleasure", this book can also be known as Fanny Hill. John Cleland wrote this in 1750. Massachusetts court judged the book to be obscene.

-1st amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment expanded because a book can be sued for being "utterly without redeeming social value" The court said that it can't be sued for being "patently offensive" which is another way to view if you can or cannot sue a book.

-The impact of this court case positively affected people's opportunity to sue, because though you may find it offensive, not everybody does and you can't sue for that.

-Border patrol agent Cesar Cantu had squeezed Steven Dewayne Bond's soft luggage, feeling a brick-like object. Bond consented to search of his bag, he had found a bag of methamphetamine. bond was indicted on federal drug charges. Bond argued that as soon as Cesar had squeezed the bag it was then an unreasonable search, violating his 4th amendment rights. Bond was found guilty, he argued that other passengers had access to his bad but wouldn't have squeezed it as Cesar did.

-4th amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment changed as now physically manipulating a bag while searching is considered unreasonable.

-The case positively impacted rights as now searchers cant physically search your bag (squeezing, poking, etc) but can visually search it. this is positive because this can keep the objects within your bag safe.

-A reporter, Branzburg, observed and interviewed people using and synthesizing drugs. two times he was called to testify before state grand juries that were inspecting drug crimes, he refused to testify and tell them his primary sources. In 2 similar cases, re Pappas, and United States v Cadwell, two different reporters, both covering activity in the black panther organization, when called to go to grand juries and reveal information, they refused.

-1st amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment could've expanded as now it can be viewed as reporters are not required to testify in state juries

-this negatively impacts rights because information being kept secret could be bad as the information being kept could be bad, or very important

-Parents and staff of the Island Trees Union Free School District argued that some of the books within the school should be removed as they were "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-semitic, and just plain filthy.'' Acting through his friend, Francis Pico, Steven Pico brought this to court challenging to remove the books, and the school board (Steven Pico) won.

-1st amendment

- This case changed the way the 1st amendment is interpreted differently as books are going to be seen as a form of speech.

-this positively impacted the right to speech as now students can read more books, not limiting the speech of the books that will be read.

- The New York legislature passed a school districting law that drew boundaries with a strictly Judaism-practicing village, the Village of Kriyas Joel. The Taxpayers and the association of state school boards started a lawsuit claiming that this statute created a school district that only allowed residents of Kiyras Joel.

-1st amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment stayed the same as the case showed how limiting or giving more rights to religious people is against the 1st amendment

-This case positively impacted their rights as it kept their rights in check, making sure citizens get no more and no less than religious people.

-Jamie Caetano was convicted of having a stun gun in the State Court of Massachusetts. Jamie said the conviction violated her 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, she said she owned the stun gun because she needed it to protect her from her abusive ex-boyfriend. The state court said that possession of a stun gun is not eligible for the 2nd amendment right of protection.

-2nd amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment stayed the same as the possession stun gun was in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, though it was unusual to have a stun gun.

-This positively impacts rights as a stun gun can be crucial to someone's safety as self-defense or protection.

-When Keith M, Scott got parole, he was to not own any weapons. Police officers were told that he may have weapons, and his house was searched unconstitutionally. Firearms and a bow and arrow were found and were eventually admitted as evidence. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recommended that he challenge the search as it was unconstitutional.

-4th amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment expanded, now if people are parolees, that gives search officers the right to legally search their house without permission.

-This case negatively impacts equality because though searching without permission is illegal, searching parolees' houses without permission is illegal, making it unfair to parolees. However, this can also be positive as parolees are more likely to commit crimes than everyday citizens.

-Karl Oberg was driving a Honda all-terrain vehicle when it flipped and caused permanent injuries. he got $1 million for compensatory damages and $5 million for punitive damages. A 1910 amendment to the Oregon state constitution prohibited judicial review of jury awards.

-14th amendment

-The interpretation of the amendment expanded as now the jury needs to review rewards so there isn't an excessive amount of rewards

-This positively impacts rights because this ensures that people don't get excessive rewards, which can hurt the company or person giving the rewards.