Supreme Court Cases and Clauses Study Guide
Period 6
Cases
Constitutional
Questions
Supreme Court
Opinion/Decision/Precedent/Reversal
UC Regents v.
Bakke (1978)
A
Was the practice of the
14th amendment
violated towards
Bakke through
repeated rejection of
the University of
admission from their
medical school?
There was a split decision of the ruling of the
Supreme court.(5 votes for Bakke and 4 votes
against). Justices voted for an order to the medical
school to admit Bakke. Although it was argued by
Powell, that the use of racial quotas had violated
equal protection laws of the 14th Amendment. The
court had ruled to minimize the white opposition
Bakke, and extending the gains for racial minorities
through the use of affirmative action.
Webster v.
Reproductive
Health
Services
(1987) A
Was the right to equal
Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment
violated by the state of
Missouri’s
restrictions?
There was a split decision of the ruling of the
Supreme court.(5 votes for Webster and 4 votes
against).Due to the absence of the preamble,
Missouri's legislation was constitutional. Also, the
court claimed how the Due Process Law “did not
require states to enter into the business of abortion”.
If the operation were to be done during the second
trimester then it be unconstitutional.
Texas v.
Johnson
(1989) C
Whether flag burning
constitutes "symbolic
speech" protected by
the First Amendment.
Ruling of the Supreme court was Yes (7-3) it is
protected under the 1st amendment. Noted as
“symbolic speech” based on the viewpoint of the
situation. Court ruled with Johnson because it did
not pose a threat to society or was a “breach of the
peace”. The precedent was that the first amendment
was defined beyond verbal speech.
Planned
Parenthood v.
Casey (1992)
C
Can a state require
women who wants an
abortion to obtain
informed consent, wait
24 hours, and, if
minors, obtain parental
consent, without
violating their right to
abortions as
guaranteed by Roe v.
Wade?
The Supreme Court ruled for Casey but made some
provisions. Used “Roe vs. Wade” as evidence it
was “reaffirmed”. Defined some of the restrictions/
standards of getting an abortion: “parental consent,
informed consent, and waiting period laws”.
Shaw v. Reno
(1993)
I
Was North Carolina
redistricting based
upon isolating races to
influence and favor
voting?
The Court ruled that North Carolina’s plan to
redistrict had a shape so unnatural that it went
beyond what was reasonable in order to avoid racial
imbalance. The Court also upheld that redistricting
based upon race violated the Equal Protection
Clause in Amendment 14. Therefore race cannot be
the sole or predominant factor in redrawing
legislative boundaries.
Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier
(1988)
I
Is a principal’s
decision to prohibit the
publishing of certain
articles in the school
newspaper violate the
student journalists'
First Amendment right
of freedom of speech?
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's
actions did not violate the students' free speech
rights. The Court noted that the paper was
sponsored by the school and the school had the
right to leave out any information it thought was
inappropriate. Also, the Court noted that the paper
was not a public publishing in which everyone
could share views. Instead it was written by a
limited crowd with the intent of meeting
requirements for their Journalism II class.
Wolf v.
Colorado
(1949) S
Are the states required
to exclude illegally
seized evidence from
trial under 4th and 14th
amendment?
(6-3) The 14th amendment is not subject to the
criminal justice. Illegal evidence did not always
have to be withheld from all cases. Court reasons
that excluding evidence would minimize the
unnecessary searches that there are other methods
that would not fall under minimal standards under
the due process clause. They believed public
humiliation was enough punishment. This case was
reversed by Mapp v. Ohio
Furman v.
Georgia
(1972) S
Does imprisoning and
carrying out of the
death penalty
constituted as cruel
and unusual
punishment?
(5 for-4 against)
On one page the court ruled that the death penalty
violated the 8th amendment making it
unconstitutional. On the next two hundred pages the
judges gave their personal opinions about the death
penalty. Brennan and Marshall were against the
death penalty in all cases. Also was thought to be
discriminating especially to blacks, this made the
states rethink their methods of the death penalty to
not make it racial.
Baker v. Carr
1962
(Esteban)
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment - “Representatives shall
be apportioned among the several
states according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each state”
Court ruled based on Equal
Representation of districts and proper
distribution of people within districts,
however the effects were that
Gerrymandering began to occur in
Tennessee.
“ONE MAN, ONE VOTE”
Gideon v.
Wainwright
1963
(Esteban)
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment - “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
Court ruled on behalf of the Equal
Protection Clause which allows for all
citizens in the United States to be given
all their rights; including the right to an
attorney in state cases.
Wesberry v.
Sanders 1963
(Jocelyn)
Equal Protection Clause- Fourteenth
Amendment:
“Did Georgia's congressional districts
violate the Fourteenth Amendment or
deprive citizens of the full benefit of
their right to vote?”
The Court ruled against the state of
Georgia because their apportionment
system created discrimination within
the districts as some votes were valued
more than other votes.
Translation: Did the state of Georgia’s
apportionment system cause
discrimination against voters in other
districts?
Griswald v.
Connecticut
1965
(Jocelyn)
Fourteenth Amendment and Due
Process
“Does the Constitution protect the
right of marital privacy against state
restrictions on a couple's ability to be
counseled in the use of
contraceptives?”
Translation: Does the Constitution
protect the privacy rights of a married
couple to be counseled on
The Court ruled that although the right
to marriage is not specifically protected
in the Bill of Rights, the First, Third,
Fourth, and Ninth Amendment create a
new constitutional right. In other
words, together these amendments
establish the right to privacy in married
couples. Therefore, the Court ruled
against Connecticut.
contraceptives?
Miller v.
California
1973
(Molina)
First Amendment's freedom of speechallowing the distribution of
unrequested obscene material by mail.
Court ruled on behalf of the State of
California, saying that Miller had
indeed violated the 1st amendment
because of “harm” the obscene material
had on the general population.
Abington v.
Schempp
1963
(Molina)
Establishment Clause and Free
Exercise Clause of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments- “Congress
shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion…”
Court ruled on behalf of Schempp and
declared that bible readings in public
schools was unconstitutional.
Bethel v.
Fraser 1985
(Jazmin)
Does the First Amendment prevent a
school district from disciplining a high
school student for giving a sexually
offensive speech at a high school
assembly?
No, the court found that the school had
the right to prohibit offensive language.
The First Amendment allowed schools
to prohibit lewd speech because such
speech was conflicting with the
“fundamental values of public school
education”
Bethel v. Fraser 1985 court case info
NORMAL LANGUAGE:
Does having the freedom of speech in
the 1st amendment prevent a school
disciplining a student after making a
speech with sexual offensiveness at a
high school assembly?
Reynolds v.
U.S. 1878
(Jazmin)
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute
violate the First Amendment's free
exercise clause because plural
marriage is part of religious practice?
NORMAL LANGUAGE:
Does the law violate the religious
beliefs in the 1st amendment? Because
we’re only allowed one spouse at a
time while a religious belief says to
have multiple wives or husbands.
Palko v.
Connecticut
Violation of the 5th and
14th amendment
No, the First Amendment protects
religious belief but does not protect
religious actions. “Those who practice
polygamy could no more be exempt
from the law than those who may wish
to practice human sacrifice as part of
their religious belief.”
Reynolds v. U.S. 1878 court case info
Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy was
not a basic/fundamental right and therefore did
not adhere to the 14th amendment and Palko was
not defended under the Bill of Rights. Palko was
then sentenced to death.
Brown v.
Board 1st
Violation of the 14th
amendment; children of
color being withheld the
basic rights listed under the
14th amendment
“Separate but equal” is not constitutional by any
means. The final ruling also stated that states
could no longer have their schools as “separate
but equal.”
Brown v.
Board 2nd
Violation of the 14th
amendment. Discriminating
children of color in public
schools is unconstitutional.
The final decision was follow up to the first
ruling. The court’s orders that desegregation
occur "with all deliberate speed,"
Reversed the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of
“Separate but Equal” doctrine.
Mapp v. Ohio
Violation of the 4th
amendment- evidence was
discovered but did not
match the search warrant,
thus violating the 4th
amendment
Supreme Court ruled “All evidence discovered as
a result of a search and seizure conducted in
violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution (”Constitution”) shall be
inadmissible in State court proceedings.”
meaning that if police officers cannot search a
house with a warrant for evidence A and leave
with evidence B, they would need a search
warrant for that too. Defended and defined the
“Exclusionary Rule” of the 4th amendment
Heart of
Atlanta Motel
v. United
States
Violates the 14th
amendment. Refuse public
services to people of color.
The court ruled that states had no right “to select
guests as they saw fit” in places of public
accommodation.
Engel
v.
Vitale
Violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st
amendment:
school-sponsored “non
denominational”(open/acceptable to Christians)
REQUIRED prayer and pledge of allegiance in
public schools knowing that not all students
believe in the same beliefs as the school does.
Miranda v. Arizona
(1966) (JP)
5th amendment - gives a criminal
suspect the right to refuse “to be a
witness against himself.”
6th Amendment - guarantees
criminal defendants the right to an
Supreme Court ruled that the
pledge of allegiance and school
prayer is unconstitutional b/c
schools funded by government
cannot endorse any particular
religion(Christianity in this case).
The Supreme Court ruled that
detained criminal suspects, prior to
police questioning, must be informed
of their constitutional right to an
attorney and against self-
attorney.
incrimination.
Lemon v.
Kurtzman (1971)
(JP)
Establishment Clause 1st
amendment - allowing private
schools to be funded by state.
The Supreme Court ruled that under
the Establishment clause, states can
reimburse private schools and follow
the three part Lemon test:
1. Non Secular purpose
2. No advance or inhibit of
religion
3. No excessive entanglement
between church and state
Roe v.
Wade U(1973)
(CL)
1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments
- protect an individual's “privacy,”
privacy is broad enough to
encompass a woman's decision to
whether or not terminate her
pregnancy.
The Court ruled that the states
cannot outlaw or regulate any aspect
of abortion performed during the
first trimester of pregnancy, limited
during 2nd, and none during 3rd.
U.S. v. Nixon
(1974) (GV)
5th amendment- Due Process
6th amendment- Nixon could not
use Executive Privilege b/c it
interfered with the 5th Amendment
The court ruled out Nixon's call for
Executive Privilege. Nixon resigned
to avoid the reciprocation of the
tapes (“I am not a crook”).
Buckley v. Valeo
(1975) (GV)
1st Amendment Association
Clause- Individuals have to right to
associate themselves to whatever
association
The court limited the amount of
financial contribution (Hard money)
to campaigning.
Abington School
1st Amendment (Establishment
District v. Schempp Clause)- Sponsored Bible reading
(1963) (CL)
in Public School.
Deemed sponsored Bible Reading
unconstitutional.
Near v. Minnesota
(1931)
(JP)
Any person is allowed to write what
they please as long as it doesn't
break any type of law.
1st Amendment: Freedom of Press
14th Amendment: Right to pursue
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness”
New York Times v. Did the Nixon administration's
Upheld the fact that the first
United States
efforts to prevent the publication of amendment freedom of press is
(1971) (CL)
what it termed "classified
absolute and is never restricted
information" violate the First
Amendment?
Susana:
Marbury v.
Madison
(1803)
Whether William Marbury could
write or not for being denied the
appointed position for the Peace for
the District of Columbia and
whether the court can observe and
approve the writ.
Susana:
McCulloch
v. Maryland
(1819)
The questions towards the case is
whether congress can create and
open a bank. Also, whether the new
law of Maryland to tax banks was
constitutional as it interfered with
the bank of congress (higher power
than the states).
Itaide: Plessy
v. Ferguson
(1896)
Under the 14th Amendment, is it
correct to segregate people on the
train.
Itaide:
Schenck v.
U.S. (1919)
1st Amendment, freedom of speech,
allowing Schenck’s expression be
protected.
The supreme court had stated that such a
writ is possible because the procedures
were done under the law. The supreme
court had decided that Marbury had the
right to gain his position. However, the
supreme court did not have the power to
give Marbury the position that he
demanded for and for which he was
appointed to. The inability was caused
due to it being a violation towards the
Judiciary Act of 1789, which helps
determine judicial powers.
Established the precedent of Judicial
Review allowing the courts to declare
acts of Congress and pres
unconstitutional
The Supreme Court’s opinion was that
both had good arguments as the federal
government only established banks due
to the necessary and proper clause. It was
known to be only to benefit the nation.
Maryland’s side was the fact that taxes
will only regulate business and refrain
from abuse. In the end, the decision was
that Maryland could not tax the Bank of
the United States built by congress.
Congress can create a national bank
without it being stated in the constitution.
This cases provided the importance of
congress’ implied powers and how the
constitution plays a huge role and how
congress or court must fill in what is not
stated in the constitution.
The majority ruled state-imposed racial
segregation because they referred to the
“separate but equal” doctrine. Their
interpretation of the 14th Amendment
was that race was equal under the law but
segregation was allowed. Later overruled
by Brown v. Board of Education.
It was ruled that Schenck was not
protected because under the situation, his
words/use of language presented danger.
He violated the Espionage Act of 1917, it
was thought that he was conspiring
against the U.S. and the manner that he
used the mail was unlawful.
MaylineGitlow v.
New York
(1925)
Is it constitutional for the New York
law to punish one for their advocacy
of the government?
-1st Amendment
-14 th Amendment
The Supreme Court ruled Gitlow guilty
of his crimes, however the state
government did abuse their power and
denied his human rights.
MaylineGibbons v.
Ogden
(1824)
Issues with this case was
whether the a state should
be given the power to grant
an exclusive right to the use
of state waterways?
-Article I, Section 8, Clause
3
-Article I, Section 9
Joselene:
Barron v.
Baltimore
(1833)
Eminent Domain
The United States Supreme Court established that
Since, the government can
an individual citizen's property was not at all
repossess property that is
inclined to the regulation of the Fifth Amendment.
owned by citizens for public
use. “Public Use” was not
defined when the case was
tried.
Fifth Amendment:
Government must uphold
legal rights of all
individuals
Joselene:
Dred Scott v.
Stanford
(1857)
Slavery
Whether or not the National
Government can deny a
citizen the right to property
without due process of law?
The validation of the
Missouri Compromise and
its Constitutional Action.
Led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme
Court went in favor of Gibbons.The Court’s ruling
voided a New York state law and voided the
Fulton-Livingston contract which required
steamboat owners to buy a license allowing them
to operate in New York state waters. This case
helped establish the legal framework for the
growth of the country.
Slaves were not citizens of the United States at the
time and could not sue in national courts and also
declared that the Missouri Compromise was
unconstitutional which meant that Congress does
not have the privilege to prohibit slavery in
territories. This decision was overturned by the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment.
Case
Constitutional Question(s)
Supreme Court
Opinion/Decision/Precedent/Reversal
U.S. v.
Lopez
(1995)
Questions whether the Gun Free
School Zones Act is
unconstitutional because it gives
further power to Congress under
the Commerce Clause
The Court’s decision resulted in: 5 votes for
Lopez and 4 votes against. Lopez was found
guilty since he violated the Gun Free School
Zones Act, however that is separate and has
nothing to do with interstate commerce or
economic activity.
Clinton v.
NY
(1998)
Whether the Line Item Veto
Act’s cancellation procedures
violate the Presentment Clause of
the Constitution.
The Line Item Veto Act gave the
President the right to veto any
one part of a bill which landed on
his desk, as long as the President
provided that his veto was for the
good of the
country. Cancellation meant to
rescind, or in the case of a direct
spending item, a veto rendered
the provision as prevented from
being implemented.
The Court ruled : No. If the President wants to
try and receive more power in the legislative
process, he or she should refer to Article 5 in
order to propose amending the Constitution.
Made the Line Item Veto act unconstitutional.
Bush v.
Gore
(2000)
The issue at stake was a
controversial recount in the 2000
U.S. presidential election and,
ultimately, which candidate
would become President of the
United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision
ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida had
violated the U.S. Constitution when it ordered
the recount only in certain districts, and that the
recount had already been altered by shifting
methods of vote-counting. Therefore, the state
of Florida had violated the equal-protection
guarantees of the 14th Amendment and either
way, there would have been no proper way to
recount the votes by the final election deadline
therefore Bush became the winner of the
national election.
Ashcroft
v. ACLU
(2002)
Whether the Child Online
Protection Act's requirements
violate the First Amendment by
restricting speech and also
violates the First Amendment by
using a method that is not least
The Supreme Court decided: No. In an 8-1
decision, the Court held that COPA’s
dependence on community standards to identify
material that may be potentially harmful to
minors is not enough alone to violate the 1st
Amendment by restricting speech (claim
restrictive?
against).
Lawrence
v. Texas
(2003)
Does the Texas Homosexual
Conduct law violet the 14th
Amendment’s guarantee to equal
rights.
Whether adult’s sex life in their
own home violate liberty and
privacy (14th, Due Pro)
5 of the 6 justices ruled that it was protected by
the Equal Protection law to engage in private,
sexual activity even if they were homosexuals.
Sodomy laws were taken down in 13 other
states.
Atkins v.
Virginia
(2001)
Is the execution of mentally
retarded persons "cruel and
unusual punishment" prohibited
by the Eighth Amendment?
The Supreme Court decision: Yes. In a 6-3
decision, the Court stated that the executions of
mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and
unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth
Amendment because the Constitution places
certain restrictions on a state’s power to take the
life of a mentally retarded offender/criminal.
Citizens
United v.
FEC
(2010)
Does a part of the 2002
Bipartisan Campaign Act violate
the First Amendment
-Corporations or unions cannot
contribute 60 days prior to a
general election or 30 days of a
primary. Hilary: The Movie
Majority ruled BCRA S203 (prohibition of
independent expenditures) did violate the First
Amendment. The precedent established that
limits under the BCRA provisions made limits
to campaign finance no longer applicable for
unions and corporations.
Constitutional Clauses
Constitutional
Clauses
Constitutional Language/Phrase
Translation
Equal Protection
Clause 14th
Amendment
(Esteban)
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.

Establishment
Clause 1st
Amend
(Jazmin)
Clause is the First Amendment that states
that Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion. The Supreme
Court has interpreted this to forbid
governmental support to any or all
religions

Ex Post Facto
Clause (Molina)
Latin for "after the fact," which refers to
laws adopted after an act is committed
making it illegal although it was legal
when done, or increases the penalty for a
crime after it is committed. Such laws are
specifically prohibited by the U. S.
Constitution, Article I, Section 9.
Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress
enact new rules of proof or longer
sentences, those new rules or sentences do
not apply to crimes committed before the
new law was adopted.

All those who are born
on United States
territories are citizens.
Equal Protection of the
laws under the law
Congress can’t establish
an official religion for
all of U.S.
You can’t charge someone of a
“crime” committed before the
law made it illegal.
-Reference to lecture: “You
can’t charge Jasmine of
chewing gum yesterday(when
it was legal to chew gum) today
because it was not illegal to
chew gum then”
Due Process
Clause 5th
Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of
a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or
public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
“A person charged in any state with
treason, felony, or other crime, who shall
flee from justice, and be found in another
state, shall on demand of the executive
authority of the state from which he fled,
be delivered up, to be removed to the
state having jurisdiction of the crime.”
Free Exercise “Congress shall make no law respecting
Clause 1st
an establishment of religion, or
Amend
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
(GV)
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.”
Full Faith & “Full faith and credit shall be given in
Credit Clause each state to the public acts, records, and
(4) (CL)
judicial proceedings of every other state.
And the Congress may by general laws
prescribe the manner in which such acts,
records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof.”
Extradition
Clause (4)
(JP)
No person can be withheld the
right of “Life, liberty or
property” without the due
process of law. This means that
everything must be fair and
followed accordingly in the
courtroom, such as: presenting
evidence, having a judge, jury
and confronting the person
accusing you.
Any accused person who flees to
another state should be returned to that
state. This request shall be made by
the executive authority of the state
where the crime was committed.
The government should not restrict an
individual’s choice of worship in
religion.
Any decision that would occur in one
state must be followed in every other
state, except in the case of an
exception such as Gay Marriage.
Marriage is something that is carried
throughout the entire U.S. but when it
comes to Gay Marriage it is exempted
through DOMA .
Bill of
Attainder
Clause
A legislative act which declares a named person
guilty of a crime, particularly treason. Such bills
are prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the
Constitution.
Commerce
Clause
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes.
Contracts
Clause
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing
the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of
Nobility.
Legislature cannot punish
nor jail an individual/citizen
without a trial. It is
prohibited under Article 1,
Section 9.
Congress has the power to
legislate business state to
state, foreign countries, and
Indian nations.
Contracts Clause is a scripted
deal in order for each party to
comprehend and agree on
behalf of what one should
expect of each other.
Constitutional
Clauses
Constitutional Language/Phrase
Translation
Search &
Seizure Clause
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
There must be a reasonable excuse
to get a warrant to search private
property of an individual. The
constitution protects the individuals
from unreasonable government
searches in their homes, business,
property, etc.
Supremacy
Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The Constitution and every law
made by the legislative branch
stands as the law of the land
meaning that no one, not even the
president is above the law.
Takings Clause
5th Amendment
The Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment is one of the few provisions
of the Bill of Rights that has been given
a broader interpretation under the
Burger and Rehnquist courts than under
the Warren Court. It is a clause near
and dear to the heart of free market
conservatives.
No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of
a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the
militia, when in actual service in time of
war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
This clause guarantees that all
people are given the right to a grand
jury in the fifth amendment as well
as prohibits double jeopardy in
which people are charged for the
same crime. Furthermore, if
someone’s property is taken away,
the owner must be compensated
and receive something (usually
money) in exchange.