long-term impact of Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. This will be accomplished by: studying the parties involved, discussing the facts of the case, identifying the constitutional issues, examining the decision in terms of the vote, the opinion of the court, the dissenting views and the significance of the case. Once this takes place, is when we can provide specific insights that will illustrate how this will affect the way law enforcement is interacting with prisoners.
In criminal law, there are those decisions that will have a dramatic impact upon the way law enforcement is interacting with suspects. Sometimes, there are certain cases that will give the police the power to use greater amounts of authority. When this happens, there is a transformation in how different constitutional ideas are interpreted and utilized.
A recent example of this can be seen by looking no further than the Supreme Court case Florence…...
mlaReferences
Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. (2011). Cornell University School of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-945
Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. (2011). Oyez. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_945
Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. (2011). Oyez Today. Retrieved from: http://www.oyeztoday.org/news/follow_up_florence_v_board_chosen_freeholders
Marbury v. Madison
Supreme Court Case Study
Every year Supreme Court provides decision in cases that really impact the American citizen's rights. The aim of this analysis is to keenly check cases handled by the Supreme Court and the way they were given their final verdict. The parties involved sometimes get that the cases favor them or not depending on the existing laws or even through undermining the constitution. The case in the United state law involving Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S. 137 (1803). This case created the basis for implementation of judicial review in the United States under Article III within the constitution. It became the first time in the history of the estern where a court invalidated a law through terming it as unconstitutional.
From the appointments made by President John Adams, illiam Marbury was appointed federal justice of peace. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson became the President prior to Marbury being officially appointed.…...
mlaWORK CITED
Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S. 137 (1803).
martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304. 4 L. Ed. 97. 1 Wheat. 304. 1818 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1816)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952).
Chief Justice Warren noted in the syllabus of the case,
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on…...
mlaReferences
Author not Available. "About the Case." Brownvboard.org. 11 April 2004. 13 Oct. 2004. http://brownvboard.org/summary/
Author not Available. "Timeline of the Justices." Supremecourthistory.org. 2004. 13 0ct. 2004. http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/02_a.html
Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of 'Brown v. Board of Education' and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred a. Knopf, 1976.
Marshall, Thurgood. His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions, and Reminiscences His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions, and Reminiscences. Ed. Mark V. Tushnet. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2001.
Supreme Court of the United States is commonly held to be the last bastion of getting a legal standard correct and complete. While legal precedents shift and change over time, the court eventually "gets it right" or at least comes to a settled position. However, there are other times where the court clearly gets it wrong and technically ensconces something that is wrong-minded and ill-conceived. Although Plessy v. Ferguson is up there (and for much the same reason), the Dred Scott case came first and has been deemed as one of the most egregious (and racist) decisions in the course of the history of the United States. While then-Chief Justice Taney believed the decision to be on solid legal ground, the case's decision was eventually overturned and it was a reversal that never should have been necessary.
Analysis
Dred Scott was a born slave, having been born in 1799 in Virginia.…...
mlaReferences
Ellis, C. (1865). A Scathing 1865 Critique of the Dred Scott Judge, Roger B. Taney. The Atlantic. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1865/02/roger-b-taney-the-leviathan-of-slavery/387241/
History.com. (2016). Dred Scott Case - Black History - HISTORY.com. HISTORY.com. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case
PBS. (2016). Dred Scott. Pbs.org. Retrieved 28 March 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
Supreme Court opinions and dissents are essentially reflections of judicial self-restraint or judicial activism. Generally, the Supreme Court reflects judicial self-restraint or judicial activism through the use of the doctrine of standing in majority opinions and in dissenting opinions respectively. This implies that judicial self-restraint and judicial activism are terms in current legal language that describe opposite approaches that are taken by judges to interpret various issues relating to a case (Pinelli, p.31). In this instance, judges interpret the meaning of words and the intentions of their authors in a manner that is considered adequate in resolving a case. Judicial self-restraint and judicial activism are evident in the opinions and dissents of Supreme Court cases such as Allen v. right, Lujan v. Defenders of ildlife, and Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Concepts of Judicial Self-Restraint and Judicial Activism
Generally, judicial self-restraint and judicial activism are concepts that have emerged in…...
mlaWorks Cited
Cox, Archibald. "The Role of the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism or Self-Restraint?"
Maryland Law Review 47.1 (1987): 118-38. Print.
Pinelli, Cesare. "The Concept and Practice of Judicial Activism in the Experience of Some
Western Constitutional Democracies." JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 13 (2007): 31-37. 2007. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. .
Chisholm vs. Georgia Supreme Court Case
The case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 in the year 1793 is considered by many to be the first great United States Supreme Court case (ikipedia PP).
In 1792, South Carolina residents executing the estate of Alexander Chisholm sued the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due them for goods that Chisholm had supplied to Georgia during the American Revolutionary ar (ikipedia PP). United States Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued the case for the plaintiff before the Court (). Georgia did not appear, claiming that as a sovereign, a state did not have to appear in Court to hear a suit against it which it did not consent (ikipedia PP).
In a 4-1 decision, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice of the United States John Jay concurring with Justices Blair, ilson, and Cushing, and with Justice Iredell…...
mlaWorks Cited
Chisholm v. Georgia." Wikipedia. accessed 09-17-2004).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) (USSC+)." Legal Information Institute: Cornell
U.S. 419. (accessed 09-17-2004).
What is interesting about this decision is how the Supreme Court was able to draw a fine line that allowed the rule of law to continue, yet not to such a point that it would interfere with Congress' post-war actions in the now occupied South. At the time of the decision, Congress was held by a Republican majority. What this case holds is that because the South seceded, during the war they and their courts did not uphold the authority of the Constitution. Thus, habeas corpus could be suspended and trials against military officers and civilians could occur in military courts. Therefore, because of this decision, the punishment of occupied south could occur as planned.
This decision is in sharp contrast to decision handed down prior to and during the Civil War. During that time period the focus was on maintaining the unity of the entire country and therefore the decisions…...
5 May, 2005. Retrieved at http://news.public.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/05-06-2005/ca790022a837290c.html. Accessed on 11 May, 2005
Civil liberties groups unite against a surveillance society. 21 April, 2005. Retrieved at http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=civillibertiesgrou1114086814&area=newsAccessed on 11 May, 2005
First Amendment History. 5 January, 2005. Retrieved at http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/Main.asp?SectionID=16&SubSectionID=30&ArticleID=49Accessed on 11 May, 2005
In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power as Unconstitutional. September 29, 2004. Retrieved at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16603&c=282Accessed on 11 May, 2005
Ramasastry, Anita. Reform the Patriot Act to ensure civil liberties. April 20, 2005. Retrieved at http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/20/ramasastry.patriotact/. Accessed on 11 May, 2005
Somers, Andrew. Will Trading Your Freedom for a Sense of Security Really Make You Safe? Retrieved at http://civilliberty.about.com/library/content/blPatriotAct.htm. Accessed on 11 May, 2005
The USA Patriot Act Six Months Later: A Statement by Members of the Free Expression Network. Retrieved at http://www.freeexpression.org/patriotstmt.htm. Accessed on 11 May, 2005
Twight, Charlotte. Watching You Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans. Cato riefing Paper No. 69, October 17, 2001. Retrieved at http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fcurrent%2Fcivil-liberties%2FAccessed on 11…...
mlaBibliography
Christofferson, John. Patriot Act stirs prosecutors to defend its use, local governments to question its possible misuse. 5 May, 2005. Retrieved at Accessed on 11 May, 2005http://news.public.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/05-06-2005/ca790022a837290c.html.
Civil liberties groups unite against a surveillance society. 21 April, 2005. Retrieved at on 11 May, 2005http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=civillibertiesgrou1114086814&area=newsAccessed
First Amendment History. 5 January, 2005. Retrieved at on 11 May, 2005http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/Main.asp?SectionID=16&SubSectionID=30&ArticleID=49Accessed
In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power as Unconstitutional. September 29, 2004. Retrieved at on 11 May, 2005http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16603&c=282Accessed
New Haven Firefighters
The Supreme Court case of Ricci v. DeStefano was heard in April of 2009, and the Court's decision was issued in favor of the plaintiffs on 29 June, 2009. The plaintiffs here, Ricci et al., were nineteen firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut who had sued the administration of New Haven mayor John DeStefano over the decision to disregard results from a written examination given for promotion within the city fire department. Ricci et al. alleged reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race: it is necessary to note in this context that the vast majority of the plantiffs in Ricci were white, with two Hispanics included, and that the administrative decision made in New Haven was based on the fact that no African-American firefighters were able to pass the test and thus be eligible for promotion. The…...
mlaWorks Cited
"Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case." National Public Radio, 22 April 2009. Accessed 3 March 2011 at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103289178
"Supreme Court to Hear Reverse-Discrimination Case." Christian Science Monitor, 22 April 2009. Accessed 3 March 2011 at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0422/p03s01-usju.html
"Urban Renewal's Final Imposion." Washington Post, 22 October 2006. Accessed 3 March 2011 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001245.html
HOLT V. HOBBS: PETITIONE'S SIDE OF THE CASE
The objective of this study is to answer the legal question of whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy violate the eligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by preventing Holt from growing a one-half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in this case, Gregory Holt is who also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Corrections and a Salafi Muslim filed seeking an injunction and requesting temporary relief from the Arkansas Department of Corrections policy on grooming reported to allow mustaches that were trimmed and beard that were one-quarter inch in length when dermatological problems were diagnosed by the prison's physicians. Holt claimed that the grooming policy violated the eligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (LUIPA). Holt had agreed to limit the length of his beard to one-half inch…...
mlaReferences
Holt v. Hobbs 13-6827. Supreme Court of the United States.
Petitioner's Supplemental Brief. Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827. Supreme Court of the United States.
Holt v. Hobbs (2014) Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-6827
eligious Freedom-First Amendment
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
eligious Freedom is one of the key principles on which the foundation of our country was laid. United States has always supported and endorsed free exercise of religion and this right has been considered so important that it became part of the First Amendment, which clearly 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1)
However while this is the golden ideal and a shining example of our country's commitment to religious freedom, there have been several instances in the past when either the government itself or some sections of the public tried to stifle religious rights of minority groups. Closer analysis…...
mlaReferences
Bill Of Rights, Retrieved online 28th February 2004:
http://ali.apple.com/ali_media/Users/111/files/others/billofrights.pdf.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) Retrieved online 28th February 2004, http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~biella/santeria/doc1.html
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) Retrieved online 28th February 2004:
United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to the Monsanto Company for its genetically modified seeds in 1994, and in 2006, the company developed a soybean that was resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides, including those that they sell directly to farmers. Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman started purchasing Monsanto seeds in 1999, agreeing to the company's policy that the seeds only be used for one growing season. Yet that same year, Bowman purchased second-generation soybean seeds from a grain elevator, essentially a third-party vendor.
The third-party vendor seeds are intended for use not as future generation seeds but as harvest crops used in animal feed or consumption. However, to save costs, Bowman replanted the grain elevator seeds, beliving those seeds to be exempt from the patent provisions. Monsanto sued Bowman successfully. The Appellate and Supreme Courts substantiated the original decision and ruled that Bowman had to pay Monsanto for…...
mlaReferences
Bowman v. Monsanto. Oyez.com. Retrieved online: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_796
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case." The New York Times. 13 May, 2013. Retrieved online: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html
Supreme Court of the United States. Bowman v. Monsanto. Retrieved online: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Totenberg, Nina. "For Supreme Court, Monsanto's Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds." NPR. Retrieved online: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/05/14/183729491/Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Monsanto-In-Seed-Patent-Case
Right to Privacy and Consenting Adults: Examining the Sodomy Cases The 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick represents the continued legacy of homophobia of the era. This case demonstrates how homophobia has amounted to longstanding oppression for gay people, and has continually thwarted justice from protecting them or ever serving them. Michael Hardwick was in his late 20s when he was bartending at a gay bar in Georgia. He threw a beer bottle into an outdoor trash can and was written up by the police for public drinking (Bazelon, 2012). The terms of this citation come under suspicion as its possible that the police officer who wrote the ticket was just targeting him because he knew he was gay and worked at a local gay bar. The details of this citation of extremely dubious. The police officer that wrote the wrong day on the citation, ensuring that Hardwick would not show…...
he appellate court applied the precedent of Saucier v. Katz (2001), which states the application of the qualified immunity test. According to Saucier, an officer can be stripped of qualified immunity protection only if their conduct violates a constitutional right and every reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that, at the time of the incident, their actions were in violation of the law. Because the road Harris was traveling down was empty, the court found the Scott's action unreasonable and thus outside his immunity.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court reversed, finding that Scott had acted reasonably in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. he Court stated, "A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
Clearly this case will…...
mlaThe U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Harris, finding that Scott had violated Harris' Fourth Amendment Rights. This decision was upheld on appeal. The appellate court applied the precedent of Saucier v. Katz (2001), which states the application of the qualified immunity test. According to Saucier, an officer can be stripped of qualified immunity protection only if their conduct violates a constitutional right and every reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that, at the time of the incident, their actions were in violation of the law. Because the road Harris was traveling down was empty, the court found the Scott's action unreasonable and thus outside his immunity.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court reversed, finding that Scott had acted reasonably in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated, "A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
Clearly this case will affect future situations in that it gives police greater power to use force to stop potentially dangerous situations, even if the perpetrator's safety is put at risk. However, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because a police officer is a trained professional and such actions as that taken by Scott are done not out of malice but out of a concern for the general safety of the public.
U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo v. New London (2005)
Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London involved the issue of eminent domain which is granted to governmental bodies including federal, state and local governmental bodies by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which means that the government is authorized to take land that is privately owned if the land is to be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land or what is referred to as 'just compensation'. Prior to Kelo v. City of New London the power of eminent domain was typically exercised by cities for acquisition of facilities that were clearly intended for public use such as schools, bridges or freeways. The case of Kelo v. City of New London however, involved what was a "new trend among cities to use eminent domain to acquire land for the redevelopment or…...
mlaBibliography
Kelo v. New London: Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut. (2012) Institute for Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.ij.org/kelo-v-new-london
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. certiorari to the supreme court of Connecticut. No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005 -- Decided June 23, 2005 (2012) Findlaw. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-108
Longley, R. (2012) Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain. About.com. U.S. Government Info. Retrieved from: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eminentd.htm
Head, T. (2012) Summary of Kelo v. New London (2005) - Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case. About.com. Civil Liberties. Retrieved from: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm
1. The Impact of Plessy V. Ferguson on Civil Rights
2. Plessy V. Ferguson: A Landmark Supreme Court Case
3. Segregation and Equality: Plessy V. Ferguson
4. The Long-Term Effects of Plessy V. Ferguson
5. Plessy V. Ferguson and the Fight for Racial Equality
6. Examining the Justification of Separate But Equal in Plessy V. Ferguson
7. Plessy V. Ferguson: A Turning Point in American History
8. Plessy V. Ferguson and the Legalization of Segregation
9. The Legacy of Plessy V. Ferguson in Modern Society
10. Plessy V. Ferguson: A Lesson in Judicial Interpretation and Civil Rights.
11. The Role of Plessy V. Ferguson in Shaping Jim Crow Laws
12. Plessy....
I. Introduction
II. Body
III. Conclusion
I. Introduction
II. Body
III. Conclusion
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now