Friedrichs V California Student Council Case Summary

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

Over the years unions have provided many benefits to union workers through collective bargaining. One of the biggest union forces in the United States is the teachers union. With almost close to 5 million members nationwide, the teachers union is one of the most powerful unions. Through collective bargaining, problems have been created for the public school system which takes place at local school districts; rules have been imposed to create ineffective forms of organization at schools. The rules that are currently in place by collective bargaining are also creating a big disconnection with many public schools, that being the interest of the children. The teachers union is one main role

Dan Swiney stated in his 2005 interview “The low road is where somebody thinks of their immediate self-interest in solving their particular problem no matter what it costs to somebody else.” When either a business or labor union think of their self-interest and think of no regards to what it could do, it hurts the other. This makes neither organization come out in the end looking better than the other, it does the exact opposite. On page 225 in chapter 9 of section 1 it states “Benefits now make up 30 percent of workers’ compensation. This adds up to a large cost for employers – especially since benefits like health insurance are becoming expensive.” If labor unions made the compromise of paying 50/50 for fringe benefits then businesses could have that extra 20 percent to help labor unions or help the business that will in turn benefit the employees. In the cartoon in the unit 3 essay warmup it states “Gentlemen, nothing stands in the way of a final accord except that management wants profit maximization and the union wants moola.” By having both organizations negotiate and try to reach a conclusion they both feel is fair they achieve their goal of making money and in turn the business can benefit by having productive workers and

Over the years, the United States has made advancements towards a society in which gender no longer acts as a deciding factor in regards to societal and legal rights. The stance of women today differs greatly from the position they held 250 or even 50 years ago. Even though women have advanced via law reforms and changing social perspective, they still remain unrepresented and uninvolved in the law, which leads to a lack of overall equality in our legal system and society.

One of the most well-known Supreme Cases involving student rights was the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision of 1969. The verdict quickly became a precedent for many other decisions involving school issues and is very relevant today.

Both sides had major arguments and reasons why they thought their side was right. Regents of the University of California said that their special admissions program helped limit discrimination in our society. Medical schools normally were discriminatory towards minors (by the admission process based of credentials) so this program helped ease that problem. The Regents of the University of California also stated that the program will help poor communities by giving them physicians that will want to go and help out the cause of where they grew up. Regents of the

According to the April 2012 case of Olson v. The Tukwila School District, under the recreational use immunity state there are three conditions that protect public recreational areas from lawsuits. The three conditions, which are cited under Cregan v. Fourth Mem’l Church (175 Wn 2d 279, 283-84,285 P. 3d 860 (2012)) are:

The First Amendment to the Constitution says that “Congress shall not make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” This was put in the constitution to protect our right to speak against law. Non-members who are disagree to involve in agency, pay fees, and support the union required to pay mandatory fees that is automatically taking out from their paychecks like who are the member who are agreed to support the union. But, the fees weren’t directly used for public employees but political bargaining. The choice of opting-out wasn’t valid when union takes some money and their choice of speech is ignored by paying union fees and forcefully become

Writing in opinion of the court in the case of Fisher V. University of Texas at Austin (II). This case had been previously heard by the Supreme Court resulting in a 7-1 decision that explained the University had no grounds to apply any preference to racial minorities in the application or the acceptance process. The case was reopened at both the fifth circuit court and the Supreme Court. There will be seven justices presiding over this case, with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself.

There are two questions that this court must answer today; First, does Keller’s speech have First Amendment protections? Second, does the University of California, Delphi have the ability to restrict such speech? Keller argues that the university violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to restrict his expression of disfavored views. The university contends that Keller’s actions were disruptive to the learning environment, and thus suspended; not violating his rights to free speech.

I think with every law, legislature needs to give a guidelines for the courts to follow. They need to set the laws for law enforcement to follow and the courts to enforce. I do not necessarily think they need to get involved in every single case of homicide. With the case of State v Olson, they were involved because the defendant, Duane Olson felt he should not be convicted of first degree manslaughter. Duane Olson was arrested for killing his 6 month old son by shaking baby syndrome. The child was taken to the hospital and put on life support due to brain damage. The child was taken off life support and eventually died. The autopsy disclosed cerebral swelling with bilateral subdural hematomas (State v Olson, 1989). Duane Olson felt that his

changer in the realm of union mandatory fees. This case challenges the structure of the agency

The distinction between an act and a status would be best described by the case of Robinson v California in which the California statute makes it an offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics” (Brody and Acker, 2010). The actual act would be using the narcotics which is usually a criminal offense. However, the status would be addicted to narcotics. Just because someone is addicted to narcotics does not mean it is a criminal offense. Just the fact that they use the narcotics is.

Another change was requiring unions to recertify. People who are in support of recertification do so because an abundant amount of bargaining units have not encountered recertification since 1970. People who are in support believe that having reelections will make unions more responsible for their members. People who do not support recertification believe that frequent union elections would be costly and redundant for unions. As an example, the Ankeny Education Association just finished going through the recertification process.  It cost the association $1.00 per member, for a total of $785 to recertify.  According to The Des Moines Register, “Perhaps more than any other, this provision is viewed by Democrats and union officials as an attempt

Teacher Unions have evolved over time and have been essential in education equality and reform. Some now question the motivation behind these unions and whether or not they are now a barrier to reform, rather than a assistant. This paper will explore the evolvement of not only Teacher Unions, but the purpose and motivation behind said unions. Two of the most predominately known unions are American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association, NEA.