The date for the decision was on June 27, 2002. The justices who voted for the majority were Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. The majority decision was written by Clarence Thomas. The Court held that, “…because the policy reasonably serves the School District 's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional.” There were in fact no concurrent opinions written.
I believe this particular decision was one made in haste and based solely on political preference rather than based on having a fair and impartial electoral process that would benefit society rather than the justices. The Supreme Court stepped in and decided the election for the voters, which was an
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Facts of the case: In 1924, the state of Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which banned the marriage between a white person and a person of color. The law only targeted interracial marriages that consisted of a white person and a non-white person. The act had additional provisions that penalized the travel out of state for purposes of marriage between a white person and person of color; upon return to Virginia, the marriage would be subject to Virginian law. The punishment for the marriage was one to five years incarceration, and the marriage would be void “without any judicial proceeding.” Aware of the Racial Integrity Act, Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, traveled
Therefore, in the final decision of the case the opinion of the majority voted that the separate accommodations imposed by the state of Louisiana did not violate the clause of equal protection for all races. The decision of the justices was based on the on the separate but equal doctrine concluding that segregation is not an unconstitutional way of
Concurrence: Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor agreed with the opinion of Justice White. Powell stated that the students are not afforded the same constitutional protections in school as they would have outside of school. Justice Blackmun also agreed with the majority but wanted to elaborate and put a highlight for a special exception to the Fourth Amendment because the teachers and school officials need to have discipline in schools to create a safe and productive learning
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
Since the case trial, almost twenty-five percent of the student population is made up of males. In addition to the growth of male students, the nursing field still continues to be the top degree earned awarded by Mississippi University for Women till this day. Also in 2002, the university’s president proposed to changed the official title of the college to just “Mississippi University” and take out the “for women” but this was denied by the council. As of today, the university now offers sport and educational scholarships each year for both men and women. A similar case occurred in the late 1990s, United States v. Virginia, in which a school in Virginia excluded women from educational opportunities.
v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515 where it held that generalizations about women could not be used to exclude them from the Virginia Military Institute; some differences between the sexes were real, not perceived, and therefore could require accommodations. In agreeing with a line of cases finding the physiological differences between men and women impact their relative abilities to demonstrate the same levels of physical fitness, the Court held that “an employer does not contravene Title VII when it utilizes physical fitness standards that distinguish between the sexes on the basis of their physiological differences but impose an equal burden of compliance on both men and women, requiring the same level of physical fitness of
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
United States v. Miller Kalyn Reading The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller. “On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce.
Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police.
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
Johnson, a former senator from Tennessee who had remained loyal to the Union during the war, was a firm supporter of states’ rights and believed the federal government had no say in issues such as voting requirements at the state level. Under his Presidential Reconstruction, which began in May 1865, the former Confederate states were required to uphold the abolition of slavery (made official by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution), swear loyalty to the Union and pay off their war debt. Beyond those limitations, the states and their ruling class (traditionally dominated by white planters) were given a relatively free hand in rebuilding their own governments.
: In the year of 1979 in the state of Mississippi, Joe Hogan was denied admission into a single-sex education establishment called the Mississippi University for Women due to his gender. Hogan claims that MUW’s women-only policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment which holds the equal protection clause. MUW states that their policy has shown to have logical reasoning for its existence and claims to have no violation of his equal protection rights.