Mathews V. Eldridge Case Summary

Both of these cases go to show that judicial interpretation allows some flexibility into the constitution. It allows things that are not expressly stated in the constitution to be made

The arguments of the Scopes Trial, which is also known as the “Monkey Trial”, have been carried far past the year of 1925. When laws are challenged it shakes the town or city one is apart of. This was true for the U.S. as a whole. The Scopes Trial has never been forgotten, and its repercussions are evident. The trial demonstrated lawful challenges.

Benson Legg, the judge presiding on the case stated, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all he needs”

They also explore Marshall’s Harvard Law Review in 1987. The author also examines and reflects Marshall’s opinions as a justice in the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Payne v. Tennessee. The author also reviews Marshalls court briefing in the case Brown v. Board of Education. Hemingway, Anna, et. al.

Case Citation: DICKENS BY DICKENS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. NO. CIV-2-86-91. 1.Facts:

The court case Roper v. Simmons was a case that questioned whether or not the execution of a juvenile violated the Constitution. This case began in 2002 and was appealed and decided in 2005. This was a Missouri case that involved Christopher Simmons, who at the time was only seventeen years old. As a punishment for a crime that he committed, Simmons was given the death penalty. Simmons tried many times to appeal his case and avoid being executed. His appeal was granted after the supreme court made a decision regarding the case Atkins v. Virginia. The case Atkins v. Virginia stated that the execution of people who suffer from mental retardation is not only a violation of the 8th and 14th amendments but is also unconstitutional. The Supreme

The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from

Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision.

For example, in Ritchie v. People (1895), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the eight-hour provision from the Law of 1893, because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving women of freedom of contract, which is derived from the due process clause (A14.1). The decision rooted from the larger political battle occuring at the time- most wealthy businesses and political leaders did not support protective laws - which led to a display of false paternity/equality by the justices. In dismay, Florence Kelley rejected that the Fourteenth Amendment could be used in such a manner, and said, “The measure to guarantee the Negro freedom from oppression has become an insuperable obstacle to the protection of women and children” (W15). In the campaign for protective rights for laborers, the ruling from Ritchie v. People marked a defeat, but not an end. In 1908, Kelley, and the NCL, sought redemption through the case of Muller v. Oregon (case description), and picked an attorney, Louis Brandeis, who “seemed like a champion to fight her battle in court” (W26).

The 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith is about Smith and Black who were both members of a Native American Church and counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. They were both fired because they had taken peyote as a part of their religious ceremonies, at that time the possession of peyote was a crime under the State law. The counselors filed for unemployment in the state, but were denied by the Employment Division because the reason for their unemployment was work-related misconduct. Smith and Black argued, stating that under the First Amendment the government is forbidden from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion in this case the free exercise of peyote. Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, saying that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to as it was a part of their religion.

The Civil Rights Movement happened because the African American citizens finally stood and fought for their rights. The Civil Rights Movement took place in the 1960s when many cases were brought up to the Supreme Court that led to desegregating a place or even an action. One of the most important cases was the Bailey v. Patterson case. The case’s hearing, Bailey v. Patterson case, took place on February 26th, 1962 which gave the Civil Rights Movement a huge boost. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com)The Bailey v. Patterson case was between Samuel Bailey and a Mississippi general attorney.

In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall

The Texas versus Johnson case is a case where the state of Texas is arguing that Johnson should be charged and reconvicted. Johnson was a criminal, and he was wrong in his actions. Texas understands that, and they are going to argue the side of justice. Johnson should’ve turned himself over while he had the chance, but he decided to fight his side of the case. He has those rights. Johnson should be charged and found guilty for his violation of Texas state law.

The Dred Scott v. Sanford case involved a lawsuit made by a slave name Dred Scott claiming that he should be granted his freedom. His claims were based on the argument that his master Dr. John Emerson had illegally held his during trips to Illinois and Wisconsin which were both free territories. With Dr. Emerson having died at the time of the lawsuit, Scott sued his widow. The lawsuit was ultimately taken on by her brother Sanford hens the name Died Scott v. Sanford. Unfortunately for Scott, he was not identified as a citizen because he was a African American. Due to this, his case could not be heard because of the courts could only hear cases regarding citizens complains. In result, Dred Scott was not granted his freedom

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution.