United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named
The Paramount decision happened in 1948. This was a supreme court case. The ruling of this case decided if movies studios would also own movie theaters and hold exclusive rights to their theaters. The movie studios were monopolizing the industry. This court decision changed the way Hollywood was run. It changed the way movies were produced and distributed. Before this ruling, certain theaters would play certain movies. They would only play the movies that were made by the same company. This is basically making people go to a certain theater just to see a certain dilm that they want to see. This is now illegal. The Paramount decision is used as a reference for other court cases that are similar. The result in this decision is that
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.
Imagine a person takes your phone and starts going through your photos, messages, notes, and emails. People have private information in their cell phones which they don’t want people to look at. Law enforcements today are taking phones and search them without a warrant when they are arrested. The federal government is able to know where you are located just by easily tracking your phone. There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier.
Chicago case was the defining moment for supporters of the second amendment. The case started when Otis McDonald tried to buy a handgun to protect his family from local hoodlums. The City of Chicago had a handgun ban, preventing McDonald from purchasing the gun. McDonald challenged the ban, and took the feud to court. The City of Chicago ruled that they should be able to instate their own laws about gun ownership (“Otis McDonald...
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.
Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to
In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university 's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school 's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. " The college was asked to at least consider blacks in the admittance of college and they were asked to not use quotas in the admission
The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.
Claiming the thermal evidence was a violation of the fourth amendment right, your right to privacy within your home and to legal searches. After this case was sent to the Supreme Court, which I agree is where this case belonged, they found that the lower courts judgments were wrong in admitting this evidence. And after reading the facts of the case fully and Justice Scalia’s court opinion, I would have to agree that this case requires further inquiry into the original intent of the fourth amendment. I think that we as citizens do have a right to privacy within are home, however I think that if someone is doing something illegal within their home then there should be proper measurements that are taken to stop them. The reason I think the court should have ruled in the way they did is because this is a case where is begs the question how far can someone go using technology to obtain information that normally would have caused the officer to break the law to
Good evening! This is Bryce Seyler with WFREE News reporting live from the United States Supreme Court. Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio making it one of the most famous Supreme Court cases to take place in this century. Supreme Court Justices had to decide whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution was admissible in a state court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dollree Mapp in a 6-3 vote.
US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.