Site icon Eminence Papers

Locating and Analyzing U.S. Supreme Court Case Laws

Perkins

Locating and Analyzing U.S. Supreme Court Case Laws

Part 1

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was decided that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, as it violates the Eighth Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the federal government must provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Part 2: Locate the following cases in LexisAdvance and answer the questions provided.

  1. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, (1963)
    • How many headnotes are provided?
      • 9
    • Which case was overruled in Headnote 2?
      • Betts v. Bradley 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
  1. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
    • Headnote 1 states that “the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not Suppress that speech together.
    • Explain why headnotes can be useful when researching and reading a case?
      • Headnotes are useful when researching and reading a case because they help in pinpointing the most relevant cases for a specific legal issue. Headnotes also help in finding important information on a legal topic without reading the entire case relating to the topic.

Part 3 – Case Brief

Locate the following case in either LexisAdvance or FastCase (your choice). You should provide a case brief using the case briefing elements you learned about this week in the module 04 lesson content.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Facts

Students at a public school in Des Moines decided to wear black armbands in the school environment to silently demonstrate against the Vietnam War. The principal issued a warning that stated that the school would suspend students if they wore the black armbands to school. The school feared that the protest would cause disruption in the school. Some students did not listen to the principal, and they went ahead and wore the armbands at school. The three teenagers who were found wearing the black armbands were suspended, and their families filed a lawsuit. The parents argued that the school was preventing their children from exercising their right to free speech. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Low ruled that wearing the black armbands could interfere with learning, hence siding with the school’s position. The students were not content with this ruling, and they appealed the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit but still lost. In 1969, the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district violated the student’s right to free speech because the black armbands were a type of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

Issue

Is prohibiting students from wearing armbands to school as a silent way of protesting war a violation of the First Amendment right?

Holding

Yes, the prohibition violates the First Amendment

Rationale

Neither the learners nor the teachers gave up their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and speech when they were in the school environment. School officials could not prohibit students from wearing black armbands based on the notion that the speech may interfere with the learning setting. The First Amendment does not provide the right to express any view at any time. Students also go to school to acquire knowledge and not teach hence making the armbands an interference. School officials demonstrating a valid interest in the order of the school should have wide-ranging authority to uphold a fruitful learning environment. The armbands were, however, a type of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment, which is why the school was in violation of the student’s First Amendment rights. The silent protest was also not interfering with the school’s ability to function as required, and thus, the school district’s decision to restrict students from exercising free speech rights was unjustifiable. The school also failed to demonstrate that the armbands led to substantial and material interference with discipline or schoolwork and had only acted to avoid the unpleasantness and discomfort that arises when there is an unpopular perspective. The school district had also not banned all political symbols but had sidelined the armbands to prohibit students from wearing them.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question 

Locate the following cases in LexisAdvance and FastCase. You should copy and paste your search history under the citation for each case found to show how you located the case in Lexis Advance.

Locating and Analyzing U.S. Supreme Court Case Laws

Find a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was decided that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, as it violates the Eighth Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Find the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that the federal government must provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Locate the following cases in LexisAdvance and answer the questions provided.

Locate Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, (1963)
How many headnotes are provided?
Which case was overruled in Headnote 2?

Locate Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Headnote 1 states that “the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not __________?” (fill in the blank).
Explain why headnotes can be useful when researching and reading a case.

Locate the following case in either LexisAdvance or FastCase (your choice). You should provide a case brief using the case briefing elements you learned about this week in the module 04 lesson content.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Exit mobile version