Barr V. Lafon Summary

Freedom of speech is defined by the first amendment as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of

"Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students. The court agreed that the student's rights should be protected and that ‘students do not shed their constitutional

This was William Henry Furman stepped in at the home of the Micke’s family. A 26 years old African-American man noising in the kitchen at 2:00 a.m. When the family was deeply sleeping.

The first issue of the commission of Marbury begins with an act of congress passed in 1801, the president from time to time will appoint justices of the peace that will preside for five years. In order to decide whether he is entitled to the commission, one must decide whether he had been appointed. If he was appointed the law would continue and he would be given the status of Justice of the Peace for five years. Since the powers of appointing justices of the peace are vested solely in the president, and does not have to be confirmed by any other entity. Since, the president did indeed appoint Marbury and sign, he was placed into power the moment the document was signed. Therefore, Marbury does have the right to commission. The second issue

Government-appointed officials can face controversy throughout their careers concerning their religious liberties. In this country, there are different points of view on how constitutional rights, specifically First Amendment right, should play into their jobs. While these officials still have basic rights as citizens, they are restricted within their duties, especially in the cases of completing public services for individual citizens. In his article “12 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics”, Peter Montgomery stated, “As individuals, public officials and public employees enjoy the same religious liberty protections as all Americans… However, a public official has no right to cite religious beliefs as a reason for failing to uphold the duties of their office or for discriminating against some constituents….” Considering this, public officials are free to express

: The primary issue in King v Burwell was the legality of subsidies that are issued by the IRS on behalf of the states that used federal health insurance exchanges. The plaintiffs in King filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which challenged the IRS on the basis that the ACA can authorize tax credits only for individuals who purchased insurance on state-established Exchanges (e.g., “Obama Care Facts”, para. 2). The plaintiffs argued that the IRS should not be allowed to interpret the law on their own. They wanted the Supreme Court to tell the IRS that they had to interpret the law in a certain way. Should the court have ruled against the plaintiffs, would have resulted in little to no change.

convinced by the district’s arguments, ruling that the student speech was not at all private. The control

Summary judgment is proper when a court’s judgment is in favor of the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Accordingly, to obtain a judgment under Rule 56(c), the moving party must come forward with evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor. Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 310, 802 P.2d 1000, 1009 (1990); Allyn, 167 Ariz. at 195, 805 P.2d at 1016. National Bank of Arizona v. Thurston, 180 P.3d 977. The facts of this case are undisputed. Despite its relocation, Malone cannot show that the land art was modified by human interaction that would have made the land art artificial. Thus, Herrera is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

To allow public opinion into account the Supreme Court decisions is a wise decision. I first agreed that the Supreme Court known as the Judicial Branch, should not be influenced by external factors like the public in order to interpret the law. However, in reality, that’s not what goes beyond the scene. Those that are appointed in office are very competent and highly qualified for the position to interpret the law, but who are the Supreme Court interoperating the law for? The people; and I deem that the high court should consider, public opinion especially if it’s life changing. For example, if the majority of the people decided they want to keep their abortion rights, then the court should aside with majority rather than the minority. It’s

R: The Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment such as, freedom of press, association, assembly, and petition. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would not exist. It does not include for example the right to incite actions that would harm others and to make or distribute obscene materials.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Those are the words of the first amendment in our constitution and the law the government must follow.