Landmark Supreme Court Case Summary

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, there have been numerous notable court cases. However, none of these would have been possible without Maybury v. Madison. It occurred in 1803, when John Adams decided to appoint several justices at the last minute. Not all of these letters were delivered, and one of the judges, Maybury decided to sue Madison. Madison won, and this court case creates Judicial Review.

Schools that have dress codes are going too far. Dress codes take away students ability to dress and frame their personalities. In an article by Dylan Ankersen he explains how the ability to be free is the “power to write, speak, act or dress as one wants without hindrance” (Akerson). Akerson is saying that people need the power to be who they want and not be told who they want to be. The first amendment says that “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”(Bill of Rights).

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

The schools legally censored the ability to show their symbolic speech by having uniforms to limit expression. In the Majority opinion of the Tinker v Des Moines it says that “Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). This statement exemplifies that based on the first amendment the students have the ability of expression allowed by the

BRENDA WELLS, Administrator of the Estate of DANNY J. WELLS, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY and SCOTT K. FONCANNON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JAMES JERNIGAN, deceased, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4265. James L. Foreman, Senior District Judge. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. OVERVIEW: The widow's husband died on October 3, 1987, while taking a ride in a plane that

Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional.

In 2009, the Journal of American Medical Association wrote that at least 13,000 infants will be born dependent on some sort of substance, and DrugRehab.org says that eight million children have a parent that is addicted to substances as well. Now, most laws do protect the baby from a drug addicted mother, mainly in the event of a stillborn. While having a baby with brain damages and problems caused by the mother’s substance abuse, the mother will also suffer complications during childbirth (Sarah Blustain). Barry Lester found that 320,000 pregnant women suffer from alcoholism or the use of drugs. He views that their punishment is based on what society deems is criminally wrong and believes it is a disease that should be treated at a mental health facility not prison or jail(Drug-addicted mothers need treatment, not punishment). Drug addicted mothers, pregnant or not, pose a threat to a child’s safety, and therefore, should be punished.

This paper will be discussing the United States Supreme Court cases decision in Arizona v. Gant. It relates to automobile searches and how it came about in making implications for policy changes and practices based on the fourth amendment. I will compare and contrast a similar case to this and explain how this case created changes on searches of automobiles incident to arrest. In this paper, I will also explain what the fourth amendment of the constitution is and how Arizona v. Gant limits police vehicle searches.

The reason is that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause requires courts and school districts to weigh and balance two forceful ideas that occasionally clash: The need for a safe, orderly school environment conducive to learning. The guaranteed American entitlement to speak or engage in expressive activity. Some states have passed laws empowering school boards to regulate student dress. For instance, Tennessee has a law allowing school boards to pass

run by school officials, that it could be controlled by them, "so long as their

Landmark cases are court cases that were studied because of its historical and legal significance. Important cases such as: Miranda v. Arizona and Mapp v. Ohio are the type of cases which have a long lasting effect on the application or creation of a specific law, often involving the violation of an individual’s rights and liberties. In order to understand how a judicial branch works, how these decisions have affected the law, how past court cases have affected citizen’s everyday life and protected individual rights there is the necessity to study Supreme Court Landmark Cases. Cases such as Miranda v. Arizona and Mapp v. Ohio has provided predictability to our justice system and past decisions have been applied to current cases and issues. The importance of Landmarks cases relays on the American legal system which is a Common Law System. This type of system is the one where the judges base their decisions on previous court rulings in similar cases. Supreme Court decision such as Brown v. Mississippi and Gideon v. Wainwright had provided with the right to an attorney and protected us from police officers attacking us brutally in order to obtain a confession. All these Supreme Court Landmark cases have sculptured criminal procedure as how we currently know it and have the privilege to enjoy. In order to understand how the basis of criminal procedure have been formed there should be a clear understanding of the importance of the Supreme Court Landmark Cases such as Miranda v.

Students can express themselves without limits because the first Amendment protects their rights. The American Civil Liberties Union stated in its Dec. 31 , 1994 paper. “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech Codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution” (Procon).This basically means that it doesn’t matter how offensive their clothing, hair, etc is, the Amendment protects it. So they are allowed to wear anything they want, because they have the right to. There are people that argue that students should have a limit of freedom of expression in school, because then they would have too much freedom and may use it in a negative way.Regardless, while this maybe true in some cases it is unconstitutional to take American citizens right away. Also, the First Amendment protects that right too. Neil Ralston’s article “Learning to Appreciate the first Amendment”, states that Many high schools teach students about their First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press.”It is in these schools that teachers lecture about the First Amendment while the administrator restricts what the students wear, what they say, what they write, what they produce on stage, and even what they sing” (Raston).The school is teaching their students about their First Amendment rights and free speech. The administrators restricts what the students wear, what they say, what they write, what they produce on stage, and