2. Reason: Same-sex couple wanted to get married and said that it violated the equal protection clauses of the 14^th Amendment.

 3. What did the Supreme Court rule on the case? They legalized gay marriage

4. How many justices were in favor and how many were against the ruling? 5 were in favor & 4 were against.

5. Were there any dissenting opinions among the justices, if so, what were they? Yes. Roberts said, “while same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions. Instead, this issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of their electorates.”

6. Which justices are/were on the court when this case was ruled on? Robers, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan

7. In what year was this case heard? 2015

8. I agree with the ruling of the case. I feel that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, whether they are the same sex or not. 

 2. What was the reason for the lawsuit? To file a bill of complaint over Colorado’s legal Marijuana law

3. What court will hear this case? Supreme Court will hear and rule on this case. 

4. What do you predict they will rule on this case? They will probably allow Colorado to keep it recreational because it increases states money, jobs, and taxes, bringing the nation government more money. Also if they take it away it isn’t really going to help the amount of people using in surrounding states, they will still find a way to get it.

5. How would you rule on this case? I wouldn’t make Colorado ban the recreational use of marijuana again because either way people are going to find a way to get it. There is always going to be ways people always have an always will bring it state to state sale to others and it will continue to be used if it is legal or not. 

2.       Ellis Island was given to New Jersey in 1834 but New York was given all of the water rights to the channel that Ellis Island was in. Ellis Island was later given to New York and ignored for years. New Jersey wanted their island back since it had been not expressively granted to New York.

3.       The supreme court ruled that New Jersey would get the island

4.       6 justices where for the ruling and 3 were against

5.       J

6.       William Rehnquist, john P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonio Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

7.       1998

8.       Yes I agree with the ruling because New Jersey was originally granted the island and should have had it the whole time

3. Against the petitioner, to uphold the 21st amendment
4. 9-0
5. No
6. | Hugo Lafayette Black| Felix Frankfurter | William Orville Douglas | Tom Campbell Clark | Earl Warren | John Marshall Harlan II | William Joseph Brennan Jr. | Charles Evans Whittaker | Potter Stewart
7. 1958
8. Yes because they ruled in favor of a constitutional amendment

2.       REASON: Vermont claimed New York and the International Paper Company were discharging waste in areas that led to a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek (part of Vermont).

3.       RULING(1/2): The Supreme Court made a ruled in favor of Vermont.

4.       RULING(2/2): Nine justices were in favor of Vermont, so the ruling was conservative. 

5.       DISSENTING: None.  All justices were in favor of Vermont. 

6.       JUSTICES: Harry Andrew Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell Jr., William Rehnquist, William Orville Douglas, William Joseph Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Bryon Raymond White, Thurgood Marshall, and Warren Earl Burger. 

7.       YEAR: The case was heard in 1972 and decided in 1974. 

8.       POSITION: I agree with the Supreme Court.  New York was handling waste in a manner that was interfering and contaminating some of Vermont’s water sources. 

2.      The law suit was derived by states who believed there was an issue amongst transgenders using the bathrooms they felt fit their personality verses the bathroom that is based on their genitalia. 

3.      The Supreme Court has yet to hear this case due to the fact that it is still pending.

4.      I hope justices will recognize that people are people and we are not always defined by our physical traits.

7.      I personally believe/hope the Supreme Court will recognize that times are changing and this will grow to be a more reoccurring problem and recognize that all people have rights. I do not see the harm in transgender individuals using the bathroom they feel they coincide with. While yes, body parts are what have defined us from the ultrasound revealing of our physical gender and the very minute we were born, we have to try to understand those who feel they are trapped in the wrong body.

2.       Montana wants to limit the amount of water that Wyoming and North Dakota farmers use because Montana claims they don’t receive enough water from the Yellowstone because Wyoming and North Dakota farmers use too much.

3.       In favor of Wyoming and North Dakota

4.       7-1

5.       Majority opinion by Clarence Thomas saying no, Wyoming didn’t violate the Yellowstone River Compact

6.       Justice’s Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Elana Kagan

7.       2011

8.       Yes I agree on the ruling. In 1950 Wyoming and Montana signed the Yellowstone River Compact which decided how the two states would share water. Wyoming has not violated that compact.

6. Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
7. April 26, 1995
8. Yes I agree because I don't feel as if school should be a place where you have to feel as if to bring a handgun to school. As if you were walking down a street, seems like a more reasonable cause to carry a handgun. 

6. John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Melville Fuller, David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White, Rufus Wheeler Peckham, Joseph McKenna

7. 1900-1901

8. Yes, it seems fair because of the effect the sewage has on the state. 

2.       What was the reason for the lawsuit? Texas felt that the Feds were not providing deportation relief to millions of people.

3.       What did the Supreme Court rule on the case? A loss. A district judge in Dallas dismissed a lawsuit over the resettlement of Syrian refugees here.

4.       How many justices were in favor and how many were against the ruling? 4-4

5.       Were there any dissenting opinions among the justices, if so, what were they? The states say the president infringed on congressional authority over immigration laws.

6.       Which justices are/were on the court when this case was ruled on? U.S. District court Judge

7.       Do you agree with the ruling of the case? Explain your answer. I don’t agree with the district court dismissing Texas’ attempt to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the state.

2. Reason for lawsuit: Delaware is being accused for violating federal law by snatching up $400 million unclaimed checks that should have gone to other states. 

3. What court will hear this case? Supreme court will hear and rule the case 

4. What year: 2016

5. Delaware and global financial transaction firm MoneyGram are accused by sending uncashed MoneyGram to Delaware. I think that Delaware would probably have to pay the other states back somehow. Delaware also violated the federal law. “Paxton said under federal law, the unclaimed checks should go to the state where the financial transaction was initiated. That means if an unclaimed official check purchased in Texas remained unclaimed, the proceeds should go to Texas.” I also believe that Delaware should be 

6. I think that the state Delaware should have to pay the other states back.