https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l en-us 2022-05-11 17:23:30 UTC 2026-01-01 10:13:10 UTC hello@padlet.com jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179830052 Facts:
- 1816 congress charted the second national bank
- 1818 the state of Maryland passed legislation to put taxes on the bank
- the sate appeals court deemed the second national bank unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
- Article 1, section 8 of the constitution

Decision and Precedent
- unanimous in favor of McCullough
- the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court
-Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution.



]]> 2022-05-11 17:24:27 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179830052 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179854957 Facts
- Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a weapon into his high school.
-He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises
-The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute
-Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
-1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act

Decision and Precedent
-Lopez was found guilty

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court
- The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.






]]> 2022-05-11 17:39:40 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179854957 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179872197 Facts
-The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.
-group came together to challenge the prayer
- New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
-1st amendment

Decision and Precedent:
-6-1 in favor of Engel
-The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:
- violated the establishment clause, specifically the separation of church and state




]]> 2022-05-11 17:50:35 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179872197 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179887222 Facts
- members of Amish churches were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16
The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
- 1st amendment

Decision and Precedent:
-unanimous in favor of Yoder
-The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:
- the courts opinion is that in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law]]> 2022-05-11 17:59:46 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179887222 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179911156 Facts
-December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war by wearin armband
-The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it or be suspended
- the student wore them anyway and did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest
-their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
- 1st amendment

Decision and Precedent:
-7-2 in favor of tinker
-The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:
- the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.



]]> 2022-05-11 18:15:40 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179911156 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179923742 Facts
-also known as the pentagon papers case
- the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam
- the president argued that these paper should not be published to protect national security

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:
-1st amendment

Decision and Precedent:
-6-3 in favor of the New York Times
-the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:
- the courts opinion is that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment


]]> 2022-05-11 18:23:58 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2179923742 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186806308 Facts
- during WW1 Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer gave out pamflets that said the draft was unconstitutional
-  Charles was charged with conspiracy
- they appealed that the charges violated the first amendment

Constitutional Issue/Provision in Question
- first amendment

Decision and Precedent:
-unanimous in favor of US
- Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court
-courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake






]]> 2022-05-17 02:58:38 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186806308 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186820167 Facts
- Clarence Gideon was charged in Florida for breaking and entering
- when he appealed without a lawyer he asked the court for one
- According to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases
- he was not given a lawyer and was found guilty
- he then filed to the Florida Supreme Court which would deny his request

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question
- 6th amendment

Decision and Precedent:
- unanimous in favor of Clarence
-The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment

Opinion
- the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own

]]> 2022-05-17 03:09:13 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186820167 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186837158 Facts
- Jane roe filed a lawsuit against district attorney henry wade 
- she was challenging a law regarding making abortions illegal
-in her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Question
-Does constitution recognize abortion rights

Decision 
-7-2 in favor of Jane
-in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice whether to have an abortion

Opinion
- Court considered whether the case was moot, concluding that it was not. When the subject of litigation is “capable of repetition yet evading review,” a case need not be dismissed as moot.




]]> 2022-05-17 03:22:16 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186837158 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186847556 Facts
-Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller
-the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. 
-plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. 

Question
-second amendment 

Decision
-5-4 in favor of McDonald
- Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states

Opinion
- Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"


]]> 2022-05-17 03:30:57 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186847556 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186853162 Facts
-Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race
-In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. 
-They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Question 
-Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Decision 
-unanimous in favor of brown
-Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Opinion 
-The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth ]]> 2022-05-17 03:35:53 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186853162 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186883427 Facts 
-Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 
-In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications.
-Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment 
-The United States District Court denied the injunction.

Question 
-wether the BCRAs actions are constitutional 

Decision 
-5-4 in favor of citizens
-the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited

Opinion 
-The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporatio]]> 2022-05-17 04:03:22 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186883427 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186888601 Facts
-Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens  said a 1901 law made to apportion the general assembly’s seats was ignored
-Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

Question
-wether Supreme Court had jurisdiction over legislative apportionment

Decision 
-6-2 in favor of baker
-Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.

Opinion 
-Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted.

]]> 2022-05-17 04:08:52 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186888601 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186893453 Facts
-The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district.
-One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched.
-After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question
-fourteenth amendments equal protection clause

Decision 
-5-4 in favor of Shaw
-Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race

Opinion 
-After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded

]]> 2022-05-17 04:13:44 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186893453 jfernandezmiro23 https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186899608 Facts
-Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election.
-Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. 
-William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered.
-Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents

Question
-the supreme court’s authority over commissions 

Decision 
-unanimous in favor of Marbury 
-Though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void.

Opinion 
-The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus]]> 2022-05-17 04:19:24 UTC https://padlet.com/jfernandezmiro23/o0d4bgk4d29jo63l/wish/2186899608