Legal Issues And Judicial Reasoning Of Every Case

Identify the areas of law that are relevant to the chosen media report, and explain how they are relevant to the matters outlined in the report.

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. If it was not for a man in his prison cell that wrote to the Supreme Court, the United States court systems would not be the same today. Clarence Gideon was arrested because he stole money from a pool hall’s vending machines. At trial he could not afford an attorney and was not appointed counsel. If it was not for Gideon who wrote to the Supreme Court petitioning his constitutional rights he would have never had the opportunity to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Clarence Gideon was an uneducated and poor citizen, he still was able to petition his constitutional rights to the United States Supreme court in order to achieve a truly fair trial. He ended discrimination in the courts against the poor who cannot afford their own counsel.

The plaintiff, Plessy was criminally liable under the separate but equal statute for using facilities designated for a different race. He was thus found guilty under the fact that the statute reasonably exercised the state police powers with regard to the state’s tradition, usage, and custom. Plessy, thus filed a petition against Justice Ferguson for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court on the

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

There are several issues that need to be addressed as it relates to the situation. These issues include those from a policy standpoint, as well as those from a legal standpoint. The following are the issues this author saw fitting to tackle:

Mr. Aaron Jackson was placed under arrest and charged with illegal possession of the firearm. It was later discovered that the state of Newtown, a place located near New Setonia and where Mr. Jackson lives, had a similar statute. This statute stated the trucks defined in the New Setonia’s law is actually commercial vehicles. Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the car. First, the trial court denied this motion, and Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty. Mr. Jackson appealed for a motion to suppress once again, which was denied because it was stated how Officer Raymond’s initial stop was reasonable under the New Setonia law. When Mr. Jackson made yet another appeal, the Court of Appeals decided to hear the case. Now, the question lingering is whether Officer Raymond stopping the Defendant for violating the New Setonia’s statute is

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

I tended to favor strict interpretation of the laws and rights of this case. The First Amendment should be applid to everyone, regardless of their legal status or age. I didn't believe that the ordinance served the public interest since it didn't have anything to back up the fact that it reduced crime. The ordinance also interfered with the rights parents have to raise their teens as they want to without the overview of the

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

In regards to other legal issues that are to be addressed I will break them down by a case by case basis.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

3. Summarize the legal arguments raised by the (a) plaintiff and by the (b) defendant.