The Case Of Schuette V. Coalition

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

Univ. of TX”). According to the 14th Amendment, The Equal Protection Clause forbids any state from making a law that infringes upon a person’s rights (“14th Amendment”). In other words, laws must treat a person as equal as others in similar situations. The Supreme Court discovered that the case had not gone through the “strict scrutiny” test, so the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for further review. The Court of Appeals determined in a 2-1 verdict that the university was justified in its use of affirmative action (Brunner and Rowen). In the aftermath of the case, universities and medical schools now face complications justifying their affirmative action plans. While many people oppose affirmative action policies, there are some experts who defend the

In 1973, Bakke received a score of 468 out of 500, but was not accepted, because he had applied late in the year due to his wife's mother's serious illness, and by this time of the year, only applicants with scores 470 or higher were accepted. There were, however, four special-admissions slots remaining, but Bakke was ineligible for these. The special admissions program at Davis was reserved for applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and these applicants, who were required to be from a racial minority group, were evaluated separately from the other regular-admissions applicants. In both years that he applied, Bakke's GPA was close to the average for regular admittees, but significantly higher than that of the special admittees. His MCAT scores were well above both averages. Bakke was angered but decided to apply again in 1974. He was again rejected. Bakke then sued the medical school. He claimed that the special admissions program was an unfair racial quota, a violation of the 14th amendment. In its decision on the case of Allan Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that race can still be used as a factor in admissions. In the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Marshall, the only justice on the Supreme Court who was of a racial minority group, stated that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified directly after the Civil War,

Along with this ruling, the Supreme Court appealed this case. It was believed that the plaintiffs in the case needed more proof. The court wanted the plaintiff to show more reasoning why that individual was denied a job based on race, creed, color, or other factors. The Supreme Court also wanted the employer to show the reasoning behind the testing or the requirements of the job. As a result, the case moved closer to disparate treatment. However, in these types of emotional cases proving the case can be tedious.

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

Colleges and Universities are still trying to move beyond race-based admissions. In the case of a young woman who applied to the University of Washington who talks about her home life with her father abusing her mother and her mother abusing drugs. This essay from the high school senior impacted the readers into helping to ban affirmative action from university admissions. In February, Florida joined the growing number of states that struck affirmative action from admissions. California in 1996, voters eliminated race-based admissions policies, and the same year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did the same in Texas in Hopwood vs. State of Texas. The University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Virginia have elected to significantly reduce the role of

In Hopwood v. Texas, Cheryl Hopwood along with three other caucasian law school applicants challenged the affirmative action program at the University of Texas Law School. She claimed that she was denied admission to the law school despite being better qualified than many admitted minority candidates. Hopwood along with Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, all had better combined LSAT and grade scores than 36 of the 43 Latinos admitted, and 16 of the 18 blacks admitted (Hentoff 1). Judge Sparks ruled that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been the issue in the case. In the ruling, he wrote that it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society", and that they were still "a necessity" until society overcomes its tradition of institutional racism (Hopwood V. Texas 1). After the four plaintiffs appealed the case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school"( Hopwood V. Texas 1). The University appealed the decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review, making the case the law of the land in Louisiana, Mississippi, and