Jones V. Massachusetts Case Summary

Facts: Antoine Jones (defendant), a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia was suspected for drug trafficking by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. As a joint task-force investigation, the FBI applied for a warrant that authorized the use of an electronic tacking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the warrant, in which authorized an installation of the device on Jones’s vehicle within in the District of Columbia and and within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. However, the government did not install the device on the undercarriage of Jones’s vehicle until the eleventh day

On November 8, 2011, there was an oral argument in the Supreme Court for the case of United States vs. Jones. Antoine Jones was arrested on October 24, 2005, for drug possession. Prior to detainment, police had attached a tracker to the undercarriage of his wife’s jeep without any formal judicial approval. The law enforcement then used this to follow the movements of the car for about a month. The question that arouses during this case was if the warrantless use of the tracker on Jones vehicle violated his fourth amendment rights.

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

Nature of Case: The District Court condemned Antoine Jones of previous drug crimes. The defendant asked for an appeal and then then it headed D.C. Circuit of Appeals which they ended up reversing the condemnation. They stated that the no warrant use of the GPS violated the fourth amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review order of a higher court from previous court decision).

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

Throughout the United States history, there have been many decisions that could have both made and broken the establishment as we know it. One such case that hinges on that statement would be that of the United States V. Jones. The Government is your friend, if you haven’t done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide. Respondent Jones committed a crime that is a known fact. The police had a warrant and they acted on that warrant, although it had expired which was there own fault, they attached a GPS onto his wife’s car because he was smart when using his own car and his own cell phone. Talking in code and only driving from his house to work in his personal car.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice