Bill of Rights:You be the judge

Scenario 1

Court Ruling:

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that Lucas must be justly compensated for residential land that he had purchased in 1986. Lucas was prevented from constructing “habitable structures” under a 1988 South Carolina law designed to prevent erosion and destruction of the State’s barrier islands, where Lucas owned his land. The Court declared that “when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good...he has suffered a taking...” and must be justly compensated.

​

Scenario 2

Court Ruling:

In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that the school district had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by a policy authorizing, via a vote of the student body, a student- led, student-initiated prayer over the public address system prior to a football game. The school policy made the prayer “public speech,” not private, taking place on government property, with government sanction, at a government-sponsored event. “[T]he realities of the situation plainly reveal that [the district’s] policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion.” The Court noted that the voting process did not make the prayer permissible, but in fact constituted religious coercion of the minority by the majority.

.

​

Scenario 3

Court Ruling:

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002) the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of mentally retarded individuals constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Court reasoned that since many states have discounted death as an appropriate punishment for the mentally retarded, due to their lessened accountability, an ‘evolving standard of decency’ dictated that it be deemed a violation of the Eighth Amendment. “[W]e therefore conclude that such a punishment is excessive and that the Constitution ‘places a substantive restriction on the state’s power to take the life’ of a mentally retarded offender.”

.

​

Scenario 4

Court Ruling:

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin law mandating public school attendance until age sixteen violated the Exercise Clause by punishing those who chose not to send their children to school for religious reasons. The Court ruled that the individual right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state’s interest in ensuring that school children received what the state deemed a proper education, and that the values and curriculum of the public school setting were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion.”

​

Scenario 5

Court Ruling:

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that police were obligated to notify the accused of their rights to counsel and freedom from self-incrimination prior to any criminal interrogation. Further, the Court barred prosecutors from using, at trial, any evidence obtained during interrogation if it could not be shown that the police had made the accused aware of his rights under the Constitution. “The modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented” and “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.”

​

Scenario 6

Court Ruling:

In Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the Court ruled that the pre-trial publicity, as well as the behavior of the media during the trial itself, had so biased the jury that jurors were rendered incapable of providing a fair and impartial decision. “Due process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences.” The Court reasoned that while the press plays an important role in the preservation of a “public” trial, it cannot be so intrusive that it fundamentally prevents the administration of justice. The Court noted that Sheppard’s trial judge should have taken measures to “place the interest of justice first,” ahead of the demands of the news media.

​

Scenario 7

Court Ruling:

In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure was constitutional and did not violate the student’s Fourth Amendment rights. Citing a less-strict standard than is generally applicable to search and seizure claims, the Court decided that a standard of “reasonableness” be applied (as opposed to the “probable cause” the Fourth Amendment requires for search warrants�to be issued) due to the nature of the school environment. “The initial search for cigarettes was reasonable ... the discovery of the rolling papers then gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that respondent was carrying marijuana ... and this suspicion justified the further exploration that turned up more evidence of drug-related activities.”

​

Scenario 8

Court Ruling:

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that Ku Klux Klan leader Brandenburg’s right to free speech had been violated by an Ohio law that sought to criminalize public speech that advocated “crime, sabotage, violence ... as a means of accomplishing ... political reform.” In its ruling, the Court applied�a two-part test, allowing such speech to�be prohibited only if it is (a) “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (b) “likely to incite or produce such action.” The Court reasoned that since Ohio’s law made the mere advocacy and teaching of such doctrine illegal without taking into consideration whether the speech would actually lead to “imminent lawless action,” the law was too broad and criminalized speech in a manner that violated the First Amendment

​