SCOTUS Cases Research & Present project
LBriones
APGoPo
Purpose: Gather intelligence on significant Supreme Court cases that may be tested on the AP exam.
Products: 15 researched cases; of those, choose 4 to present in a creative way to class.
Individual Responsibility: Your researched cases, peer assessment on presentation component.
Group Responsibility: Work together to neatly format & submit research on time & positively contribute
to the creative presentation.
NOTE: THERE IS MINIMAL CLASS TIME AVAILABLE SO PLEASE FAIRLY ASSIGN TASKS, BE
RESPONSIBLE TO WORK & COMMUNICATIONS, AND WORK ON CREATIVE COMPONENT
OUTSIDE OF CLASS.
Grade based on: 15 researched cases (45%), creative presentation (30%), peer assessment (25%)
Due dates:
Inclass:
Homework:
March 10, 11 ~ Show me your 2 researched cases
Commit to research remaining cases
Email your formatted cases to members
Research & email to peers remaining cases
March 12, 13 ~ Show me your remaining researched cases
Brainstorm creative presentation ideas
Spring Break!!
March 24, 25 ~ Brief group meeting to discuss presentation
1 person email me your Word doc with 15 cases
(make sure you get a confirmation email!!!)
April 1, 2 ~
Complete online Peer Assessment
PRESENTATION DAY!!!!!
How to “Get an ‘A’:
Word doc with 15 researched cases (45%)
 Format is easy to read
 Fonts are consistent
 Critical information within paragraphs are bold or highlighted
 Submitted (& confirmed by me) on time
Creative presentation (30%)
 Content of 4 cases is thoughtfully and creatively presented
 Obvious care has been put into final copy; it is neat, carefully crafted & planned
 Presentation is fun and informative
 Everyone participates in presentation





Everything well-done? That’s an A
Not everyone participates? Presentation not fun or very informative? That’s a B
Appears to be not well-planned? That’s a C
Don’t have 4 cases? That’s a D
Don’t present? That’s an F
Peer Assessment (25): https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VPTRLL6
SCOTUS Cases Research & Present project
LBriones
APGoPo
Example of format for 15 cases:
Information you must include:
I.
Case Information
Name of Case, Year (Decision), related Amendment #, excerpt of amendment
II. Summary of Case
Background, Plaintiff & Defendants, reason for bringing the suit
III. Decision
Issue of case (in question form), Chief Justice, vote tally, key arguments in
majority & dissenting opinions
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Background: During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson (a member
of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade) burned an American flag to protest President Reagan’s policies. He
was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration and sentenced to one year in jail and ordered
to pay a $2,000 fine. The State Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. However, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning
the flag in these circumstances & reversed the lower court’s decision. Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court,
saying that its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve
the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order.
Petitioner: Texas
Respondent: Gregory Lee Johnson
Issue: Is offensive speech (such as flag burning) protected by the First Amendment?
Amendment: 1ST, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
Decision: Flag burning is protected speech.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Vote tally: 5-4 majority opinion for Johnson
Majority opinion arguments
Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy
 Johnson’s actions were expressive and political
 Offensive expression doesn’t justify prohibitions of
speech.
 State officials can’t designate symbols to be used
to communicate only some messages

"[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the
First Amendment, it is that the Government may
not prohibit the expression of an idea simply
because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable."
Dissenting opinion arguments
Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, White and O’Connor
 Because of its unique position as a
national symbol, Rehnquist concluded that
it was constitutionally permissible to
prohibit burning the flag as a means of
symbolic expression.
 Texas’s prohibition on flag burning did not
regulate the content of Johnson’s message

“millions and millions of Americans regard
it with an almost mystical reverence.”