Supreme Court Comparison Cases #1

Supreme Court Comparison Cases #1

Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. 
The Court ruled in an 8-1 decision in favor of Bakke. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas employed at the school violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. 

A. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Regents of California vs. Bakke and Brown vs. Board of Education. 

"In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which authorized the use of medicinal marijuana.  Drugs that were prescribed by doctors were seized from homes by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). California's law also was in conflict with the Controlled Substances Act.  Medicinal marijuana users argued that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause and the Controlled Substances Act. 
In the Gonzales case, the court held in a 6-3 decision that Congress did not exceed its powers under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.  The court ruled that Congress could ban marijuana production because it was part of a national marijuana market. " 

Based on the Constitutional Clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of US v Lopez led to a different holding than the Gonzales case. 

"The city of Highland Park, Illinois passed a series of ordinances banning AK 47s, AR 15s, and other large capacity magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds.  The ordinance followed the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Many residents of Highland Park supported the ordinances in light of the tragedy. Arie Friedman, who lives in Highland Park Illinois, owned a banned rifle and several large-capacity magazines before the ordinance took effect. The city gave anyone who legally possessed assault weapons or large-capacity magazines 60 days to move these outside the city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. Mr. Friedman, brought suit against the city, stating that it violated his protected rights. 
The United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines citing that these weapons did not exist at the writing of the Constitution and therefore were not constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court denied Mr. Friedman a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the decision of the lower court. "    "The city of Highland Park, Illinois passed a series of ordinances banning AK 47s, AR 15s, and other large capacity magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The ordinance followed the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Many residents of Highland Park supported the ordinances in light of the tragedy. Arie Friedman, who lives in Highland Park Illinois, owned a banned rifle and several large-capacity magazines before the ordinance took effect. The city gave anyone who legally possessed an assault weapon or large-capacity magazines 60 days to move these outside the city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. Mr. Friedman, brought suit against the city, stating that it violated his protected rights. 

The United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines citing that these weapons did not exist at the writing of the Constitution and therefore were not constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court denied Mr. Friedman a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the decision of the lower court. "     

A. Identify the constitutional clause common to Macdonald v. Chicago (2010) and Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois (2015). 

"In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the students enrolled in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School were responsible for writing and editing the school's paper The Spectrum. Two of the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy.  The school principal felt that the subjects of these two articles were inappropriate. As a result, he prohibited these articles from being published in the paper. The student journalists then brought suit, alleging that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech had been violated. 
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, as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles that it deemed inappropriate and that might appear to have the imprimatur of the school. Specifically, the Court noted that the paper was not intended as a public forum in which everyone could share views; rather, it was a limited forum for journalism students to write articles pursuant to the requirements of their Journalism II class, and subject to appropriate editing by the school. " 
    
A. Identify the clause that controls the restriction on speech in the school environment in both the Tinker and Hazelwood cases.