The Supreme Court Of The United States

Type of action: This is a civil suit against the city of Houston and its police chief for employment retaliation in violation of Nixon First Amendment right to free speech.

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

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Held 5-4 (Brennan writing) affirming the ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals expressive conduct intended to express an idea shall fall under the umbrella of the First and Fourteenth Amendments thus any restriction must show a substantial governmental interest to be valid.

Today, I am presented with a case that puts in question the violation of individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. This case also puts in question the rights of the authority placed in our streets, neighborhoods and towns to perform actions directed towards certain citizens in an effort to serve and protect the overall population. There must be a careful analysis in order to interpret the records of the incident that occurred to conclude who holds the most justified position in this case under the applicable laws. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York must also take into careful consideration the circumstances discussed and the ruling given by the District Court assigned to this case, which I

City of New London ruled on an infamous eminent domain issue redefining “public use” as including government economic development measures. The City of New London approved a development project that would destroy hundreds of homes in the name of monetary gain and, what the state would call, economic development. The state interests are creating 1,000 plus jobs, increase tax revenue, and revitalizing the city’s economy as a response to the Federal Government’s condemnation of a Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which employed a majority of the city’s jobs. One resident filed suit claiming the city’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s scope “public use.” The city’s plans went beyond condemning property for a general use that was actually open to the public, but instead condemned private land to sell to another private individual developer. The Court ruled that because the city had a carefully drawn plan and the precedent defining “public use” is broad, the city may deprive one citizen of property rights for a more productive reason of another

In any legal system, there is a notion that the chief end to be achieved is justice. Clearly no one would advocate for an unjust legal system, but what if the clear distinction between just and unjust is not so clear? What if there are diametrically opposed moral principles supporting competing arguments? On three occasions, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined ruling on whether the relationship with an assailant 's wife deprives a defendant of the right to self-defense.

The Court established from Aguliar v. Texas (1964) and Spinelli v. United States (1969), the Aguilar-Spinelli test determined whether an informants’ tips or letters could be used as probable cause to obtain a search warrant. This two pronged test established that [1] the tip had to “reveal adequately” the informant’s “basis of knowledge”, [2] the tip had to “provide facts sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant, or, alternatively the ‘reliability’ of the informant’s report. The anonymous tip did not meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test which was proved not credible for two reasons. [1] The Principal received an anonymous tip that ‘one of her students’ was distributing condoms to students during lunch break which was in violation of school policy. The anonymous person did not specifically state that Bradley was the person who was distributing the condoms and also did not provide any description of the person was provided to the

Repeatedly throughout history, the United State’s Supreme Court has changed their standing on labor laws, from supporting the right’s of employees to supporting the right’s of employers. In 1903, the Supreme Court concluded through Lochner v. New York that the government did not have the right to oversee businesses, but in 1908 the Supreme Court passed an unprecedented decision regarding labor laws. In Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court alternatively sided with the workers and upheld restriction on working hours in a gendered argument based on the fact that the workers were women. On the surface, the decision was just, as it protected workers’ right, but in the long run the outcome was unjust; suggesting through gender formation, intersectionality, and structural sexism that superficially the decision was a progressive legislation but it masked misogynist values, preserved heteronormative ideals and perpetuated gender inequality.

Originally, I had thought there was no way something so sacred should be allowed to be defaced, but I have quickly realized the constitution is much more powerful and sacred. As a nation, we must pick our fights and the hills we die on. It will not and never should be considered treason to burn the flag, however there is, like with most things a catch twenty-two. Publicly and privately the burning of the flag is accepted as freedom of speech, but once this simple gesture turns into a hazard we must act. President Trump and conservatives may view it as weak, but a system of penalties or citations would be the correct form of punishment. We should follow the lead of other progressive nations and fine those who attempt to burn the flag in

When proposing a noise ordinance, one must look at the First Amendment to assure the ruling doesn’t conflict with the public’s constitutional rights. By identifying whether Councilman Prejean’s and Councilwoman Gautreaux’s proposals are content-based or content-neutral, a test can recognize whether the proposal intrudes on the First Amendment rights. Through this process, it’s proven that Councilman Prejean’s proposal needs to be reworked to better fit the constitutional rights and the peace of Justice city whereas Councilwoman Gautreaux’s proposal can be passed right away.

Was Grove City College subject to federal requirements because its students received federal grants? Did the provisions of Title IX violate the First Amendments rights of the College?

Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering?

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.