Boy Scouts of America v Dale is a highly controversial case involving discrimination against homosexuality. It was argued by the Supreme Court on April 26, 2000 and decided on June 28, 2000. Parties involved included plaintiff James Dale and the defendant was The Boy Scouts of America. Dale’s lawyer was Evan Wolfson; The Boy Scouts of America were represented by lawyer George A. Davidson (Boy Scouts). Dale, who had previously been an assistant scoutmaster and an Eagle Scout, filed a lawsuit against The Boy Scouts of America because the association repudiated his membership after learning he was homosexual. The constitutional amendment at issue was the first. The case was first heard in a New Jersey state court where the court ruled that the
troop must readmit Dale due to the “state's law against discrimination in public accommodations” (Greenhouse). Soon thereafter, it was taken to The Supreme Court, where the results were as followed: “Writing for the court today, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that the court intended neither to approve nor disapprove the Boy Scouts' view of homosexuality, but that the First Amendment's protection for freedom of association meant that the state could not compel the 6.2-million member organization ''to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message.'' He said ''Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior''(Greenhouse). Justices who voted with the majority were Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. The dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer (Boy Scouts). No Supreme Court ruling was overturned by this case. However, there was a contrast between the final jurisdiction of this case and three 1980’s Supreme Court rulings that rejected specific group’s first amendment rights to exclude certain types of people, including women (Greenhouse).
In a recent opinion, the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed the meaning and status of Kansas water law. The case of Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 51 Kan. App. 2d 370 (2015), concerns a groundwater dispute between senior water users and junior water users in southwest Kansas. After filing a complaint against the junior users, the senior users sought an injunction to stop the pumping of groundwater. The District Court granted the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed their decision. The issues in the case concerned what the term impairment means in the context of water law and whether it is appropriate for a court to grant injunctive relief to a senior water user. The Court of Appeal’s decision upholds the principle
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
A teacher’s most important duty is to protect the students they are in charge of. This duty includes both reasonably protecting students from harm and, when a student is harmed, reporting it to the proper authorities (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, pp. 103-109). There have been many court cases that reiterate this duty of school staff. One such case is Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) where many staff at a school failed in their duty to protect students and allowed abuse to continue for years.
They stated that the Parents of New York United's concern was based solely on a complaint about the books going against the group's subjective values, and not the objective value of providing quality education to the students of the Island Tree School District. The student's objection to the school board's ruling to remove the “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” books garnered attention from free speech organizations and concerned libraries. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices that presided over the ruling were Justices Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens, Marshall, White, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Burger.... ... middle of paper ...
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Wainwright was because it reinforced the Supreme Court’s authority over criminal procedure in all states. Before Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama established the Supreme Court’s power to apply to state criminal procedures. In Powell v. Alabama, nine black kids, the Scottsboro boys, were accused of raping two white women. In their trials, all of the children were sentenced to death. However, the attorneys representing them did not even consult with the children to truly represent them in the case. Therefore, many debated if the children were treated correctly under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, giving the right to fair procedures for everyone. When Powell v. Alabama came to the Court in 1932 to see if the boys were given their constitutional rights, the Court voted 7-2 in favor of the idea that the boys were not given their constitutional rights. By making this decision, the Supreme Court “was doing something it had never done before--setting aside a state criminal conviction because the procedure used to obtain it was unfair” (Lewis 219). Powell v. Alabama started the hindering of federalism when it allowed the federal court system to make a counsel required for all cases involving the death penalty. However, when the Supreme Court decided Gideon v. Wainwright, its jurisdiction was established and federalism’s presence in the criminal justice
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
In December 1965, an issue was caused by teachers’ in violating students’ freedom of speech. In December some students from Des Moines Independent Community School District, in Iowa were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest against the American Government’s war policy in support Vietnam (Richard, Clayton, and Patrick).The school district pressed a complaint about it, although the students caused no harm to anyone. Students should be able to voice their opinions without the consequences of the school district.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
The law charges against the two boys in Chicago because they murder an 11-year-old girl, then steal her bicycle. This case causes a big dispute that weather the kids should take the responsibility for their crimes. I believe that the treatment to the two boys is candid and appropriate because they are old enough to understand what they are doing, and they have to pay for their sin. According to the Roman Catholic Church, 7 is the ”age of reason” to the kids. The children are capable to understand the reason and knowledge in the society when they are 7 or older. In this case, One of the boys is 8 years old, the other one is 7 years old. Both of them are in the age of reason. They must to take the responsibility for the murder due to