Setting judicial precedent for the next generation

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Abrams v. United States | 250 U.S. 616 (1919) In Abrams v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of limits on speech that allegedly posed a danger to the government during a time of war. Jacob Abrams and four other Russian nationals distributed pamphlets in New York near the end of World War I. The pamphlets protested the United States’ actions in the war, including its deployment of troops in Russia. The pamphlets encouraged workers in munitions factories to strike to thwart American war efforts. Abrams and his fellow activists were convicted of conspiring to violate the Espionage Act and sentenced to between fifteen and twenty years in prison. The Supreme Court granted a writ of error to evaluate whether the convictions violated the First Amendment. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here https://www.quimbee.com/cases/abrams-v-united-states The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/abrams-v-united-states Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Prior to leaving office, President John Adams sought to ensure his party’s continuing influence by appointing 42 justices of the peace. However, Thomas Jefferson, the new president, refused to deliver some of the appointment letters. William Marbury was among those who did not receive his appointment, and he sued to have it delivered. Writing for the Supreme Court in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission. However, he also ruled that the Judiciary Act – which provided original jurisdiction to the Court in this matter – contravened Article III of the Constitution. Thus, the Court could not order the commission to be delivered. This case established the doctrine of judicial review – i.e., the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive laws or acts invalid if they violate the Constitution. Judicial review today remains a powerful and established tool of the courts and has been described as "America's original contribution to the science of law." This animated video is part of the Virtual Museum of Law, presented by the State Bar of Georgia's Law-Related Education Program and funded by the Cornerstones of Freedom® program. Learn more at http://www.thelawmuseum.org/work/marbury-v-madison! © 2016 State Bar of Georgia

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Loving v. Virginia | 388 U.S. 1 (1967) On a hot summer night in 1958, law enforcement burst into the bedroom of Mildred and Richard Loving, and placed them under arrest. The Lovings had not gone on a crime spree, but they were public enemies in the eyes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were thrown in jail for getting married—an act prohibited in Virginia, all because the Lovings didn’t share the same skin color. The legal battle that followed culminated in the United States Supreme Court decision of Loving versus Virginia, which would forever cast the Lovings among the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, an African-American and Native-American woman, were married in Washington D.C. after falling in love as teenagers in rural Virginia. However, their return to Virginia and cohabitation as husband and wife violated the Commonwealth’s anti-miscegenation law, known as the Racial Integrity Act. The act forbade interracial marriages: specifically, marriages between white people and those who qualified as quote, “colored,” unquote. After their arrest, both Mr. and Mrs. Loving pled guilty to violating the anti-miscegenation law. Rather than serving one year in prison, the Lovings accepted a suspended sentence and were banished from Virginia for twenty-five years. The Lovings later filed a motion to vacate the state court judgment, which the trial court denied. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/loving-v-virginia The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/loving-v-virginia Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Supreme Court case that reinforced that the 6th Amendment's right to counsel applied to the states.

Brown v Board of Education was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1954 after Linda Brown, an African American student in Kansas, was denied access to the white-only schools nearby her house. Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was the lawyer for the case, and argued that segregated schools were inherently unequal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Linda Brown and declared segregation unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment through incorporation under the premise that the bill of rights also applies to the states. This is one of the landmark cases that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plainest Demands of Justice: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/curricula/the-plainest-demands-of-justice-documents-for-dialogue-on-the-african-american-experience Supreme Court Document Based Questions: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/curricula/supreme-court-document-based-questions Landmark Supreme Court Cases: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/landmark-cases About Bill of Rights Institute: Established in September 1999, the Bill of Rights Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization that works to engage, educate, and empower individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society. The Institute develops educational resources and programs for a network of more than 50,000 educators and 70,000 students nationwide. Official Site: http://billofrightsinstitute.org Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BillofRightsInstitute Twitter: https://twitter.com/brinstitute Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brinstitute/ BRI Educator Newsletter Sign Up Page: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/newsletter-signup #brownvboardofeducation #civilrightsactof1964 #brownvsboardofeducation #effectsofbrownvboardofeducation #whatwasbrownvsboardofeducation #1954brownvboardofeducation #14thamendment #incorporation #equalprotectionclause #thurgoodmarshall

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Engel v. Vitale | 370 U.S. 421 (1962) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that, quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” unquote. Since 1962, one way the clause has been applied is that no public school is allowed to have official school prayers. This is the result of the United States Supreme Court case Engel versus Vitale. In the early 1950s, the New York Board of Regents recommended to all local school boards that classes begin each day by reciting the pledge of allegiance and a prayer. The prayer went, quote, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country,” unquote. In 1958, the board of education in Nassau County, led by William Vitale, instructed all public school teachers to begin every school day by having their classes say the Regents’ prayer aloud. Steven Engel and a number of other parents with children in the local schools sued, demanding that the school district discontinue this practice. They argued that the school prayer violated the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The prayer, they argued, was composed by government officials as part of a government program to increase religious beliefs and thus breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. The Regents argued that their prayer program didn’t violate the Establishment Clause because the prayer was nondenominational, and students were permitted to remain silent or to leave the room while it was being said. The trial court held that the prayer was constitutional because no student was compelled to participate in it. The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/engel-v-vitale The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/engel-v-vitale Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | 379 U.S. 241 (1964) In 1964, the Heart of Atlanta Motel found itself at the heart of a landmark civil rights dispute. In Heart of Atlanta Motel versus United States, the United States Supreme Court established a foundation for the use of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers to protect civil rights. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in any place of public accommodation. A place of public accommodation was defined to include, among other things, motels and restaurants if their operations substantially affect interstate commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel was located in its namesake city. The motel advertised in national media, it was situated conveniently next to interstate highways, and approximately seventy-five percent of its business came from out-of-state guests. The motel also practiced a policy of refusing to rent rooms to African Americans. A three-judge district court upheld the Civil Rights Act as constitutional and prohibited the motel from discriminating against African Americans. A three-judge district court upheld the Civil Rights Act as constitutional and prohibited the motel from discriminating against African Americans. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/heart-of-atlanta-motel-inc-v-united-states The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/heart-of-atlanta-motel-inc-v-united-states Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

When police officers commit an unconstitutional search, should the evidence they obtained be usable in court? Prof. Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law discusses the Supreme Court’s attempt to incentivize police officers to comply with the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio. ******* As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Paul Cassell: https://faculty.utah.edu/u0031056-PAUL_G._CASSELL/hm/index.hml Follow Paul Cassell on Twitter: @pgcassell https://twitter.com/pgcassell?lang=en ******* Related Links & Differing Views: CPSAN Landmark Cases: “Mapp v. Ohio” http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/9/Mapp-V-Ohio Case Western Reserve Law Review: “Search and Seizure and the Exclusionary Rule: A Re-Examination in the Wake of Mapp v. Ohio” https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=caselrev University of Colorado Law Review: “The Need to Overrule Mapp v. Ohio” https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1181&context=articles Emory Law Journal: “Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice” http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/resolving.htm Washington Law Review: “Exclusionary Rule, Deterrence and Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law” https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol57/iss4/3/

When a smallpox outbreak swept through the town of Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1903, Rev. Henning Jacobson refused to comply with Massachusetts’ compulsory vaccination law. The victim of a botched vaccination in his childhood, Jacobson was fined $5 under the law and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming that this law was a violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Was Massachusetts’ compulsory vaccination law a violation of individual liberty? Prof. Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston explores the limitations of state police powers and public health in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. #SCOTUS #14thamendment #vaccination #SupremeCourt #FourteenthAmendment #vaccine #vaccinate #Massachusetts #smallpox #law #liberty #individualliberty ******* As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Josh Blackman: https://www.stcl.edu/about-us/faculty/josh-blackman/ Follow Josh Blackman on Twitter: @JoshMBlackman https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman ******* Related Links & Differing Views: The First Amendment Encyclopedia: “Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)” https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1824/jacobson-v-massachusetts American Journal of Public Health: “Jacobson v. Massachusetts at 100: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension” https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2004.055152 Harvard Law Review: “Towards a Twenty-First-Century Jacobson v. Massachusetts” https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/a_twenty-first-century_jacobson_v_massachusetts.pdf “The Long Shadow of Jacobson v. Massachusetts: Epidemics, Fundamental Rights, and the Courts” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3635740 Reason: “Jacobson v. Massachusetts did not uphold the state’s power to mandate vaccinations.” https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/24/jacobson-v-massachusetts-did-not-uphold-the-states-power-to-mandate-vaccinations/#:~:text=A%201905%20Supreme%20Court%20opinion,to%20pay%20a%20%245%20fine.