Boerne V. Flores 2002: A Case Study

What started the argument of this case was ‘what standard should be used to evaluate the sufficient amount of probable cause and if the word of an informant be reliable. Thanks to this case we now have a two prong rule that needs to be met before a magistrate can sign a search warrant.

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

The Supreme Court was faced with a unique paradox during the case Salazar V. Buono; in which their ruling had to coincide with the establishment clause in the first amendment, while avoiding the dissenting opinions of thousands of veterans and their families they threatened to insult with their decision. In 1934, the VFW commissioned a white cross to be constructed on an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve. In 1999, the plaintiff, Frank Buono, requested for the NPS to tear down the cross on the grounds that it was in severe violation of the Establishment Clause. The ensuing mess and final ruling seemingly defined the distinction between governmental and religious separation, while also confirming Congress’s

Gregory Lee Johnson was found guilty of violating Texas state law by burning the American flag at the Republican national convention in Dallas, Texas. The state sentenced Johnson to one year in prison and a fine of $2000. Johnson argued that the right to burn the American flag was protected under the right to free speech in the First Amendment. Johnson appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in Dallas. The court upheld the conviction made by the state, and the sentence given to Johnson remained. Johnson then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and they reversed the decision of the district court and dismissed the charges. The state of Texas then appealed to the Untied States Supreme Court, and the Supreme

The Police of Harris County was informed of a weapons disturbance in a private residency. The officers found two individuals of the same sex engaging in sexual, (sodomy), behavior. However, the way the police officers enter the premises, was not at all questioned.

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Sweeney, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs Levi Pettit and Parker Rice, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity at the University of Oklahoma, were expelled from the university for “leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile education environment for others” (President Boren’s Letter). The incident occurred on March 7th, 2015, on a private bus hired by the fraternity on which men from the SAE fraternity and their dates were riding back from a national celebration of their Founder’s Day.

The RFRA essentially prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” Although they have been renewed, the RFRA has progressed passed the “balancing of interests” test and compelling state interest test in the Sherbert and Yoder cases and required a “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.”

MARSHALL, Texas – The Ladies came back from a two-set deficit, but the Maroon and White could not recover from a strong start in the deciding set by the Tigers as Centenary (2-3) fell to East Texas Baptist (4-1) 25-23, 25-22, 22-25, 25-27, 15-7 Tuesday night, September 5.

… HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel because they cannot ‘exercise … religion.’ … [What is] also flawed is the claim that [the] RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents…

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

The admission of Dr. Dyer’s testimony on the cause of death did not violate the Confrontation Clause because he was as an expert giving his independent opinion.

After reviewing the case United States v. Park, one can’t help but to feel sympathize for Park. Park did claim responsibility for the rodent exposed contamination, also stated he delegated the responsivity for sanitation to a dependable subordinate. This is fine, but he should have a follow-up with the cleanliness of the warehouse and sanitation procedures. When he received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration about unsanitary conditions at on the company’s warehouse this should have thrown up a red flag. Having received this letter and done nothing about the situation not only a bad call on Park part but running a risk of public health and safety. This case like many other relies on outcomes from other similar cases. United

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by