Powell vs. Alabama
In this case nine African American men and three white men jumped on to an empty freight train that was heading through Alabama. With the new laws outlawing discrimination, obviously, a fight broke out between the two groups of people. In the end all but one white man was thrown off the train. The white people were clearly mad and the sent a report to the town of Scottsboro to let them know of this unfortunate happening. When the train was going through Scottsboro, a Sherriff and a group of townspeople stopped it. Before the train was stopped, two white women told the Sherriff that they were raped by the African Americans. All nine men were taken into custody, weren’t allowed to call relatives, and they didn’t have a fair trial. They were all found guilty with four different juries. They were all sentenced to the death penalty except for one. The state courts of Alabama did not approve of these convictions, therefore, the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court, there were obviously two different sides. The side that is for Powell, or the nine men, thought the men did not have a fair trial. Therefore, they requested a new and fair trial and their death sentences to be canceled. The side that is for Alabama says the state can have their own criminal justice system. Also, Alabama does not require the state to pay for attorneys for those who are the accused victims; they provided an attorney, however, they were all found guilty. They think the Supreme Court should not interfere with their ruling and continue with the sentences.
In the end the Supreme Court gets to make the final decision. The court ruled, with a 7-2 vote, that there a new and fair trial will be held. The black men did not have a chance to give reasons for their defense. The Court thinks that “a defendant, charged with a serious crime, must not be stripped of his right to have sufficient time to advise with counsel and prepare his defense.” The Court also stated that the men had their due process rights taken away because they did not have time to give their reasoning. Because of this case, the Court made a new law, under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, that anyone who is facing a possible death sentence will be guaranteed counsel. This law is made for State and Federal courts.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)
In Korematsu v. United States, Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American during World War II. Japanese Americans were to follow the wartime order to leave their homes and report to internment camps. Fred Korematsu refused to do so and was arrested and convicted. Korematsu lost in the Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. He was challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order.

The Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army stated the after 5/9/1942 all people of Japanese ancestry should be evacuated from that area. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, CA which was considered a “military area” and was required to be evacuated. The courts noted that when legal restrictions limit civil rights of a single racial group there is risen suspicion. However not all of these restrictions are unconstitutional, and public necessity may sometime justify the existence of such restrictions. Korematsu argued that in May of 1942 when Order No. 34 was issued, all danger of Japanese invasion of the West Coast was over. The court rejected this contention.

The court ultimately decided that under emergency and peril the “power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.” So the act of the military to confine Japanese Americans in internment camps is justified due to the war. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Owen Roberts wrote the dissent. He believed that is was unconstitutional to convict a citizen for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp based solely on his race. There was no evidence or inquiry about his loyalty and disposition towards the United States. Justice Robert Jackson also noted that “comparable burdens were not imposed upon descendents of other nationalities with whom the United States was also at war.”

Gonzales vs. Oregon (2006)
The case between Oregon and Gonzales was a case that was barely recognized by the Supreme Court. This case didn’t even challenge the Oregon law because assisted suicide is and will remain legal in that state. This gives physicians the right to prescribe medications to people that only have a short time to live. At this time the Bush administration has never asked the Supreme Court to overturn this Oregon law. The federal government which is the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for keeping assisted suicide legal in Oregon.
This case was not just solely about assisted suicide because medical marijuana and stares vs. federal rights were argued in this case also. This case was first brought to everyone’s attention in 1994. Voters agreed to legalize assisted suicide but the drugs they wanted to use were regulated by the government under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). The Drug Enforcement Administration said that these drugs weren’t to be used in assisted suicide because it wasn’t a legitimate medical reason.
A woman by the name of Janet Reno overturned the interpretation because she said just as long as the substances were controlled inside the Oregon borders it would be fine to use. This didn’t give other states the choice to prescribe controlled substances so they could still be prosecuted. She also stated that a doctor could only prescribe a lethal dose of medication to someone that is terminally ill. A doctor could be prosecuted otherwise.
The Gonzales vs. Oregon case is one of the most important public-policy to be presented to the Supreme Court in recent years. This isn’t just a case about whether or not assisted suicide should be legal but a case that states do have their own rights to legalized or illegalize laws of their own. This is a very important case about the difference between state and federal laws. This is telling the people out there that a state has a lot of choices on what laws and regulation they can put on things.

Josh Parrish
Betts Vs. Brady (1942)
The two parties involved in this case were Betts ( the criminal), and Brady (The defense attorney). Betts was detained in a Maryland Jail, and was going to be charged with robbery. Before the trial Betts asked if he could have somebody to represent him.

That request was denied and they convicted him of robbery. When Betts was being incarcerated he filed a habeas corpus petition in the lower part of the court system. When he was denied that petition that is when he got mad and he knew he just had to do something about that and fight it.

So he went out and filed a certiorari petition so he could possibly get his case heard in the supreme court. After some time of waiting the supreme court agreed to hear his case. Betts argued that his sixth amendment, ( a right to a fair trial) had been violated, because he didn’t get a counsel to represent him. The court actually did find in favor of Betts, the court decided that the right to have a counsel would be decided from case to case. This ruling stood solid for 20 years until another case came along (Gideon vs. Wainwright) in 1963.

Engel v. Vitale 1962
This case is another case about people praying in public places and other people not really liking it. This case started in New Hyde Park, New York. The parents complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs that they already taught there kids. The case began on April 3, 1962 and the final decision was receive on June 25, 1962.
Steven I. Engel the plaintiff argued that starting the school day with a prayer even if students are not required to recite it, violates the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states that the United States will not establish one religion over any other religion. Some arguments made by Vitale were that New York Regents did not establish a religion by providing a prayer for those who wanted to say it.
The Supreme Court decided that government directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1 vote because that Justice Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire before the case and Charles Whittaker resigned in March 1962. Justice Hugo Black quoted that “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings…in the Regents' Prayer is a religious activity…” (http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar10.html )

In 1950 the Topeka NAACP, led by McKinley Burnett, set out to organize a legal challenge to an 1879 State law that permitted racially segregated elementary schools in certain cities based on population. For Kansas this would become the 12th case filed in the state focused on ending segregation in public schools. The local NAACP assembled a group of 13 parents who agreed to be plaintiffs on behalf of their 20 children. Following direction from legal counsel they attempted to enroll their children in segregated white schools and all were denied. Topeka operated eighteen neighborhood schools for white children, while African American children had access to only four schools. In February of 1951 the Topeka NAACP filed a case on their behalf. Although this was a class action it was named for one of the plaintiffs Oliver Brown. But the Brown v. Board of Education victory brought this country one step closer to living up to its democratic ideas.
Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al.were the parties involved in the case. Brown v. Board of Education was not simply about children and education. The laws and policies struck down by this court decision were products of the human tendencies to prejudge, discriminate against, and stereotype other people by their ethnic, religious, physical, or cultural characteristics. Ending this behavior as a legal practice caused far reaching social and ideological implications, which continue to be felt throughout our country. The Brown decision inspired and galvanized human rights struggles across the country and around the world. What this legal challenge represents is at the core of United States history and the freedoms we enjoy. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown began a critical chapter in the maturation of our democracy. It reaffirmed the sovereign power of the people of the United States in the protection of their natural rights from arbitrary limits and restrictions imposed by state and local governments. These rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Brown v. Board of Education was not the first challenge to school segregation. As early as 1849, African Americans filed suit against an educational system that mandated racial segregation, in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston. Oliver Brown, the case namesake, was just one of the nearly 200 plaintiffs from five states who were part of the NAACP cases brought before the Supreme Court in 1951. The Kansas case was named for Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man head the plaintiff roster. The Brown decision initiated educational and social reform throughout the United States and was a catalyst in launching the modern Civil Rights Movement. Bringing about change in the years since the Brown case continues to be difficult. But the Brown v. Board of Education victory brought this country one step closer to living up to its democratic ideas.

Roe v. Wade
In 1971 the case was argued before the Supreme Court. The legal, moral, and political controversy surrounding the abortion issue has polarized the American public. The argument that the decision deprives the unborn child of its “right to life.” In Texas, State law prohibited the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means (surgery) except when the life of the mother was in danger. The statute was construed as a “nearly complete ban on abortion.” This case involved the right of privacy as implied by Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14 versus the police power of the States.
For Roe under the Bill of Rights, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. It is improper for a State to deny individuals the personal, marital, familial, and sexual right to privacy. No case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal “right to life.” Because it is unduly intrusive, the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. For Wade the State has a duty to protect prenatal life. Life is present at the moment of conception. The unborn are people, and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution. The Texas law is a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn. The law is constitutional and should be upheld.
By a vote of 7-2, with Justices White and Rehnquist in dissent, the Court agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester (90 days). Controversial when announced, the Roe decision remains at the center of the legal controversy over the right to privacy versus the rights of the unborn. The Court permitted States to require informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, and/or parental notification, but held that States may not place an “undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.

The court case Yates vs. United States began on October 8, 1956. The decision was made on June 17, 1957. In this case fourteen people were charged with violating the Smith Act, which is best known for its use against political organizations. The fourteen people were members of the Communist Party in California, this was said to be a violation of the Smith Act. The Smith Act made it unlawful to overthrow any government in the United States by force.
Yates said his party was engaged in actions that were not reacting visibly to something and any violation of the Smith Act involves active attempts to overthrow the government by force.
The issue in this case was whether or not Yates first amendment right to freedom of speech protected her. The Supreme Court said in order for the Smith Act to be violated, people must actually do something not just believe in it. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and sent the case back to a District Court for retrial.

Goss v. Lopez Et Al January 22, 1975

In this case of Goss v. Lopez it is very interesting because it’s talks about schools and students. In this case happened in Ohio, Public School System. Nine students at two high schools and one Junior high school in Columbus, Ohio, were given ten-day suspensions from school. The school principals didn’t require them to do so. The principals’ actions were challenged, and a federal court found that the student’s rights had been violated. They were denied due process of law contrary to the command of the fourteenth Amendment in that they were temporally suspended from their high schools without a hearing either to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter, and enjoining the administrators to remove all references. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The facts are important are that appellants proceed to argue that even if there is a right to a public education protected by the Due process Clause generally, the Clause comes into play only when the State subjects a student to a severe detriment or grievous loss. The court decision was rest o the premise that, under Ohio law, education is a property interest protected b y the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and therefore that any suspension requires notice and a hearing.
In my opinion a student interest in education is not infringed by a suspension within the limited period prescribed by Ohio Law. The conclusion of this case about if the permission of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students can due process right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The conclusion about its yes the Court held that because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens. It could not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine weather the miscount had occurred. The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize students’ entitlements to education as property interest protected by the Due process Clause that could not be take away without minimum procedures required by the Clause.

ROPER v. SIMMONS (2005)
In the Case of Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 due to the eighth and fourteenth amendments, any juvenile who was under the age of 18 when they committed a crime can’t be executed—even if the crime is considered a ‘heinous’ one. This ruling, on March 1, 2005, changed the constitutional laws, stating that anyone that commits a crime while he or she is under the age of 18 can’t be executed.
Some of the motivation behind this hearing was that in the past, it was believed that the brain’s reasoning skills stopped improving when a person grew to age 14; however, new studies show that the brain’s reasoning skills are the last part of the brain to become fully mature, and usually this section of the brain is still developing into an individual’s early twenties. In fact, your reasoning skills start to speed up their developing rate when you hit 14.
Previously, a total of 13 criminals were executed for crimes they committed while still a minor in the state of Texas alone; Virginia had three, Oklahoma had two, and states that had just one included: South Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Georgia. Back in 2002, three states tried 16-year-olds as adults-these included: New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina; nine states tried juveniles 17 years and older, and the remaining 38, plus the District of Columbia, considered you an adult at the age of 18. The last criminal executed for a crime at the age of a minor was Scott Allen Hain on April 3, 2003, in Oklahoma; he committed the crime at age 17, and was executed when he was 32.

"Smokin in the Girls' Room"

New Jersey vs. T.L.O
In this case, two girls, T.L.O and her friend, from New Jersey were found smoking in the Piscataway High School girls' restroom. This was against the school's rules, so the teacher who caught the girls escorted them to the principal's office. Theodore Choplick, the assistant vice principal at Piscataway High School, questioned both girls about the situation. T.L.O's friend admitted to being guilty of smoking, however, T.L.O. denied everything.

Mr. Choplick then made T.L.O. give her purse to him and he rummaged through it. He not only found the cigarettes, but rolling papers as well; which led him to search the purse even further. He found a pipe, possession of marijuana, etc. He was forced to call her parents and the police. T.L.O. was taken to the local police station, where she admitted to selling marijuana at school.

T.L.O. wanted the evidence from her purse to be surpressed because she believed it violated the Fourth Amendment. She also thought that the search was unlawful. T.L.O. took the case to the Supreme Court. They found the search reasonable due to the suspicion of her smoking in the restroom. New Jersey won the case.

I think the court made the right decision.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983)
Students from Hazelwood East High School journalism class finalized their school paper in May 1983. Robert Reynolds, the principal, reviewed the paper and found two articles that concerned him. The first one talked about teen pregnancy. Reynolds felt that there was enough information about the pregnant teens for people to figure out who they were even though names were not included. The next article was about divorce. Reynolds mainly felt that the articles were giving out to much personal information about the students involved. He had to make a quick decision so the journalism could meet there deadline. He decided to just delete the two offensive articles out of the paper rather then try to have the students write something else.
The students were upset because the felt that they did every thing according to proper journalism procedures. They felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment right. They then decided to take there case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court disagreed with the students. The court felt that if the school had to they could place limits on curricular activities.
The students then took their case to the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. The court said that the student’s rights were violated. They stated that school officials could only censor it when necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline. The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the school was aloud to censor the paper.

Gideon vs. Wainwright 1963

In this Supreme Court case of 1963, 51-year-old, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of felony in a Florida Court by breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida. After his denial for the request of free counsel, due to his lack of funds, he in turn defended himself. The court stated that it was only necessary to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases.
He was sentenced to a maximum of 5 years in prison. While he was still prison, he mailed a handwritten petition requesting the Florida Supreme Court file an appeal to be retried. The Florida Supreme Court informally rejected his petition. He decided to send another handwritten petition, only this time; it was to be sent to the United States Supreme Court saying Florida Courts System denied him constitutional rights.
After his conviction, the Supreme Court decided that the right to counsel was fundamental to a fair trial. His appeal was made and the court did not force him to pay the filing fee ($100) or supply the court with 40 printed copies of his own petition. He was acquitted of the charges against him after his retrial. It was brought to attention that a state’s failure to provide counsel is a violation of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren protected the rights of the accused.

Nixon vs. U. S.

In 1972, five men were arrested inside Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate complex in Washington D.C. the reason why they were arrested was because they were armed with cameras and equipment that was bugged, and they later discovered that they were working for the presidents re-election committee, Nixon opposed to any connection with this. Of course the men were convicted of burglary and former people who worked for the Nixon campaign included E. Howard Hunt Jr., who was a former aid for Nixon, and G. Gordon Liddy, a lawyer for the committee.
Not even months after they were convicted the judge who sentenced them got a letter from an inmate, who he sentenced talking about payoffs to the burglars to keep them quiet. In 1973 they began to investigate and it showed that Nixon’s frontline people were involved in a cover up and other illegal actions.
The constitution had questions about with holding information form other branches of government and should he have privileges because he is president. Does the separation of powers allow for the settlement of this dispute to reside in the executive branch or should it be settled by the judicial branch? Does the claim of executive privilege damage the precedent set by the 5th Amendment, which ensures due process?

The united states said that the presidents power to withhold information from any branch or group and the united states if none at all. And the presidents arguments were that it is vital and that the dispute should be solved by the executive branch not the courts. The court ruled in favor of the united states because holding a piece of evidence away from the court is not right.
After that happened Nixon stepped down from presidency and was the first president to do so in 1974... Due to a fear of being impeached.