Which of the following scenarios would be a violation of a student's civil liberties? Which right, or amendment, does this scenario potentially violate?
Bill of Rights - An introduction
Quick Write
Lesson 23
Opener: Quick Write
Miranda v Arizona
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against “self-incrimination” include the police interrogation of a suspect?
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape.
After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.
Gideon v Wainwright
Does the Sixth Amendment's “right to counsel” in criminal cases extend to all felony defendants in every case?
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him.
According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent (poor) defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and Gideon filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court
Bill of Rights (BoR) - An introduction
Terms and phrases in the BoR up for interpretation �(or related to the Constitution)
Landmark Civil Liberties Cases (Required)
PERP - Case Brief/Analysis
Time to play “Is it legal?”
Each of the following slides depicts an actual case brought before the US Supreme Court.
Your task is to determine whether any rights, laws, or liberties were violated in the scenario.
In other words, is it legal?
Engel v Vitale (1962)
In 1951, the State Board of Regents of New York composed a non-denominational prayer for public school students in New York to recite each morning along with the Pledge of Allegiance. The prayer read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.”
Participation in the prayer was voluntary, but school leaders also conducted the prayer with students bowing their heads and pressing their palms together.
Steven Engel, joined with several other parents of students in the district to protest the prayer. They argued that the school-sponsored prayer violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” When the Board of Regents refused to consider their petition to stop the prayer, the group of parents filed suit.
YODER V WISCONSIN (1972)
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16.
The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.
Terms and phrases in the US Constitution up for interpretation �(or related to the Constitution)
The 1st Amendment
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.
Tinker v DesMoines (1969)
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest.
Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fisher v University of Texas (2016)
Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the University of Texas and filed a lawsuit challenging the university’s use of race in admissions. Texas has a unique admissions program, which first accepts approximately the top 10 percent of graduating seniors from each school in the state and then uses race as part of a holistic analysis (which also includes factors like community service, leadership and family circumstances) in filling the remaining spots.
Fisher’s attorneys argue that the implementation of the top 10 percent program is sufficient to increase minority enrollment, so there is no need to take race into account when filling the remaining spots. Fisher attorney said that U.T. needed to prove that use of race in its admissions process was a “necessary last resort” in pursuing diversity, taking into account reasonably available nonracial alternatives.
On behalf of the university, Gregory Garre argued that U.T.’s holistic plan is necessary to complement its other admissions criterion and that it has a “meaningful impact on diversity. Now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student diversity in America,” he said.