Case Study: Guzman V. United States

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

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

Facts: John Angus Smith attempted to trade a Mac 10 machine gun for 2 ounces of cocaine. Smith was then arrested for possession of cocaine and a fully automatic weapon. Federal law requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence for 30 years if a machine gun is "used" in the commission of a drug offense, and because these two things were used in conjunction, Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

In the case, Arizona versus United States, I am representing the respondent, United States, where we are seeking to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in the federal district court before the law can be taken into effect. S.B. 1070, also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed in the state of Arizona in 2010 as an effort to address the large numbers of unlawful immigrants entering the state. The United States seeks to declare S.B. 1070 as preempted by the federal immigration law, where the four provisions of S.B. 1070, Section 3, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 2(B) violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

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.

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark case which determined the extent that Congress could regulate marijuana usage in California. More precisely, the case involves deliberation between the constitutionality of the Compassionate Use Act, voted on by the state of California in 1996, and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed by Congress in 1970. Does the CSA, a policy which permits the regulation of certain drugs and chemicals by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), exceed the regulations set under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Does the Compassionate Use Act, which allows for the use of medical marijuana in California, protect citizen’s rights to use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision made by the Supreme Court would spark debate over these questions as well as similar topics such as federal abuse of power, doctor patient confidentiality, and the decriminalization of marijuana across America. In my paper, I will cover the events and influences leading up to the Supreme Court’s official decision, the significance of the outcome, and the questions and issues brought up in the aftermath of Gonzales v. Raich.

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

There are 4 Ps. Ps claim they were unlawfully detained by MOS and falsely arrested on drug charges. Ps allege that they live in a three family private house with apartments on 3 floors. Ps allege that the first floor apartment was of P Yolanda Lopez; second floor apartment was of P Yvonne (non-party), and basement apartment was of Evelyn Lopez and her 17 year old daughter, Karina Lopez. Ps Rafael Rivera and Erin Morales were staying on the first floor. P Rivera alleges that MOS entered the house and order him to get to his knee and P Rivera complied. P Rivera alleges that while he was on his knees MOS struck P Rivera in the face with the riot shield. P Evelyn Lopez alleges that defendant MOS Anthony Hughes grabbed her arm and struck her face against a wall and illegally searched her basement apartment. Defendant MOS John Natoli stated that the search warrant applied to all floors because each family has access other family’s

In May of 2007, a man entered the Women's restroom at a horse-racing track that was occupied by two teenage sisters. The man asked the sister if they, “want to drink beer or party” (Pet. for Cert. at 2, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 2012 COA 193 (2012) (No 15-606)). The two sisters declined and the man then turned the lights off in the bathroom. The girls attempted to leave the restroom. The man put his hand on the first sister's shoulder and moved it toward her breast. The sister brushed his his hand away. The man then grabbed the second sister's shoulder and buttocks.

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

In comparing this case to United States v. Leon, in that case Alberto Leon had been under surveillance from the police because they suspected he was dealing drugs. In that case, the Supreme Court started the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule where it’s okay if the police searched someone and found incriminating evidence if they acted in “good faith” and thought their actions were legal. In United States v. Leon there was even a search warrant a judge had issued but later it was found invalid so the legality of the search was questioned. There was no search warrant being issued during the time Barry went to search Sheldon’s apartment. He was only acting on a personal vendetta to get back at Sheldon and since he did not have a warrant

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?