1
Miranda v. Arizona, in re Gault
Overview of case:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116
Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault had
previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when
the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial
School until he reached the age of 21.
Amendment XIV (14):
SECTION 1.
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.
Remember the Supreme Court does not determine guilt or innocence. They decide whether the lower courts followed
procedures and did not violate rights. Using the overview of the case and the portion of the Constitution in question, I
want you to write a paragraph response to the question posed by the Supreme Court. You need to use your background
knowledge of the Constitution to answer the question and the documents provided to back up your argument.
QUESTION:
Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
2
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Overview of case:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836
The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students.
In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found
two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be
withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to
court.
Amendment I (1):
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.
Remember the Supreme Court does not determine guilt or innocence. They decide whether the lower courts followed
procedures and did not violate rights. Using the overview of the case and the portion of the Constitution in question, I
want you to write a paragraph response to the question posed by the Supreme Court. You need to use your background
knowledge of the Constitution to answer the question and the documents provided to back up your argument.
QUESTION:
Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?
3
United States v. Nixon
Overview of case:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair.
The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by
Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which
is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within
the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States.
Definition of executive privilege:
the right claimed by certain U.S. presidents to withhold information from Congress or the judiciary
Definition of judicial review:
the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation violates the Constitution
Remember the Supreme Court does not determine guilt or innocence. They decide whether the lower courts followed
procedures and did not violate rights. Using the overview of the case and the portion of the Constitution in question, I
want you to write a paragraph response to the question posed by the Supreme Court. You need to use your background
knowledge of the Constitution to answer the question and the documents provided to back up your argument.
QUESTION:
Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely
immune from judicial review?
4
Bush v. Gore
Overview of case:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice
President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida
Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade
County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots
which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the
election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S.
Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme
Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.
Article II Section 1 Clause 2:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or
Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Amendment XIV (14):
SECTION 1.
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.
SECTION 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or
other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens
shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
SECTION 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer
of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Remember the Supreme Court does not determine guilt or innocence. They decide whether the lower courts followed
procedures and did not violate rights. Using the overview of the case and the portion of the Constitution in question, I
want you to write a paragraph response to the question posed by the Supreme Court. You need to use your background
knowledge of the Constitution to answer the question and the documents provided to back up your argument.
QUESTION:
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law?
Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?