United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Case Brief: United States vs. Jones FACTS: Antoine Jones is an owner of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, and he is suspected of trafficking narcotics. The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department, after using various investigative techniques, obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on the vehicle of Jones’s wife within 10 days and in the District of Columbia. On the 11th day, in a parking lot in Maryland, the government installed the GPS system on the vehicle. They tracked

Separate is Not Equal The decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, was one of the most defining moments in American history. A multiethnic movement for social change developed into a legal campaign aimed at altering the constitutional basis of government in the United States. This struggle was not only about children and their education, but also about issues of race and equal opportunity in America. The decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka initiated educational

stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out of court. In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to

conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

held by the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1259, Citation 565 U.S 132 s. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed 2d 911; United States, petitioner v. Antoine Jones. All 9 parties of the Supreme Court were present for the trial as well as the plaintiffs which were the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party had a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only brought into court for Mr. Jones’s cocaine

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political

the battles that led to the Supreme Court decision that gave same-Sex couples the same legal rights to marry as opposite-sex couples and

Freedom of Speech The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech among other valued standards. The First Amendment states 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; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U. S. Constitution). What does it mean by “Congress shall make no law…abridging

Protection of Free Speech The First Amendment grants all citizens in the United States: freedom of religion, speech, and petition. Not granting this freedom is deemed unconstitutional by the masses. The landmark court case, Snyder v. Phelps (2011), challenges the limits of free speech. The case was about Albert Snyder’s claim that Fred W. Phelps’ hateful picketing at his son’s funeral was unconstitutional. The landmark court case, Snyder v. Phelps illustrates that freedom of speech of any kind is

Amendments to the United States Constitution" (United 2). The District Court addressed each claim separately, finding credibility in only Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment claims. In Emerson's claim that the Commerce Clause was violated, he argued that the Act did not regulate commercial activity, and was therefore an unconstitutional use of congressional power. In claiming this, Emerson looked to the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Lopez, however, the District Court dismissed this