Unit 3 Scotus Required Cases PDF

Unit 3 Scotus Required Cases Establishment Clause Engel vs Vitale(1962) ○ Case was brought up when the state of New York required schools to say a non denominational prayer before the start of the school day ○ A parent of a student who had to say this prayer(Engel) sued the...

Unit 3 Scotus Required Cases Establishment Clause Engel vs Vitale(1962) ○ Case was brought up when the state of New York required schools to say a non denominational prayer before the start of the school day ○ A parent of a student who had to say this prayer(Engel) sued the school for violating the establishment clause(clause prohibits the government from “establishing”/promoting a religion) ○ The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court denied this law because the prayer wasn’t non-deminational because it included “Almighty God” which some religions don’t believe in “God” ○ This meant the State Government of New York was “establishing” a religion, thus violating the establishment clause ○ New York was forced to get rid of the law and stop saying the prayer Free Exercise Clause Wisconsin vs Yoder(1972) ○ Case was brought up when the state of Wisconsin said Amish people couldn’t pull their kids out of school after 8th grade because of a law requiring children to go to school until they turn 16 ○ Yoder(an Amish man) sued the state because he said they were violating the Amish’s right to freely exercise/practice their religion which includes the belief that children should stop education at 8th grade ○ The case was brought to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with Yoder and the Amish and declared the Wisconsin law unconstitutional because it violated the free exercise clause outlined by the 1st amendment ○ As a result Amish parents are allowed to pull their children out of school after 8th grade Free Speech Clause Schenk vs United States(1919) ○ Case was brought up when Charles Schenk(a socialist) handed out pamphlets encouraging people to dodge the draft for WW1 ○ The U.S. charged him with sedition because of one line in the pamphlets which said “Do not submit to intimidation” ○ The S.C. stated that the free speech clause didn’t protect sedition nor saying anything you want ○ They declared that the court must look at what is being said and if the person is creating a clear and present danger with what they said, the free speech clause doesn’t protect them ○ The Supreme Court decided to convict Schenk for sedition and sentenced him to jail for violating the clear and present danger clause Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community(1969) ○ Case started when the Tinker kids started wearing black arm bands to protest the vietnam war but were later suspended for doing so ○ The parents sued the School saying their suspension for wearing the arm bands violated their freedom of speech ○ The Supreme Court agreed with the parents and ruled that one’s first amendment rights follows them when they attend school ○ With this decision the Tinker kids were no longer suspended and were allowed to further protest the war in vietnam Right to a counsel Gideon vs Wainright(1963) ○ Case was between Clarence Gideon who was charged of robbing a bar but couldn’t afford a lawyer and Wainright-corrections secretary ○ Florida law didn’t give suspected criminals lawyers except if they are tried for the death penalty ○ Gideon lost in a district court but apealed the decision to the S.C., The S.C. ruled that Gideon had a right to a lawyer even if he couldn’t afford one under the 6th amendment ○ A retrial was ordered and with his lawyer Gideon was proven innocent  ○ Florida was forced to get rid of the law and now supply lawyers to suspected individuals that can’t afford one Right to Bear Arms/Operative Clause Mcdonald vs City of Chicago(2010) ○ In 1982 Chicago passed a law that required all guns to be registered and banned new handgun registrations ○ Otis Mcdonald wanted to own a handgun because of the neighborhood he lived in but Chicago denied it ○ So Mcdonald took the city to court for violating his second amendment rights ○ The S.C. extended upon a previous decision that made the second amendment applicable to the district of D.C., they ruled in this case that the second amendment is applicable to all states ○ Meaning that individuals have the right to own a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in any state