Supreme Court Case Study: Horowitz And Ewing

Since public education is a right that is offered to all students, a student cannot be denied this right without due process of the law. Due Process rights fall under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law” (Alexander, 2015, p.64). There are two types of due process; substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process refers to the words “liberty” and “property” in the 14th Amendment and connects to the behavioral objectives written by the school or school district in the student handbook regarding a student’s rights and responsibilities (Alexander, 2015, p.96- 97). The handbook lays out the rights and responsibilities of all students. If a student feels their rights, as stated in the student handbook, were limited or denied the student could challenge their rights under substantive due process. This means the student is protected against having physical property taken from them or being denied education. In contrast, procedural due process relates to the actual procedures required to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. Procedural due process is a specified constitutional procedure and “three

The petitioner Abigail N. Fisher, who is a woman of Caucasian decent, applied to the University of Texas in late 2008 (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). Since Fisher was not ranked at the top of her class her application was denied (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). The former University of Texas applicant Abigail N. Fisher believes that the Institutions discriminatory admission policies was the reason she did not get admitted into the school for the incoming freshman class of 2009, even though her application was much better than many of the admitted minority students. Fisher then filed a suit case against the University arguing that the University of Texas admission policy was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states it forbids

The school then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the state may consider race as a factor for admittance for diversity, but only if other circumstances are

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

Thus it is the opinion of this Court that the University of Oklahoma was within its rights to expel the plaintiffs because of their “leadership role” in “a racist and exclusionary chant… which created a hostile educational environment for

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

To examine the history of a case that continues to affect students today, it is important to look at how the discrepancy began starting with Mary Beth, John, and Christopher. The tumultuous 60s can be described by Kelly Shackelford, a constitutional attorney,

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

“The right to due process,” the only phrase respeated more than once in the Constitution, is guaranteed by both the fifth amendment and the fourteenth amendment. The notion that no one should be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” has become a crucial part of the foundation of the American legal system. Ascertaining over eleven different rights, including the right to a trial, counsel, habeas corpus, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the due process clause ensures that everyone is treated equally and has the same rights as any other individual involved with the judicial system. The original premise of due process dates back to 1215 to the publishing of the Magna Carta. Designed to suppress an impending revolt by King John’s disgruntled elite class, the Magna

The Law School initially placed petitioner on a waiting list, but subsequently rejected her application. Petitioner alleged that respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. The outcome of this ruling was the court ruled in favor that someone can be denied admission in preference of a different race that meet the same qualifications. The University of Michigan Law School was conducting highly individualized reviews of each applicant, and the courts determined that race was only one of the many factors they had considered for eligibility of their applicants (Grutter,

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

In the case of Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), the plaintiffs Dwright Lopez, Carl Smith and Betty Crome from Columbus, Ohio were suspended from Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School for ten days without a hearing. There were nine students including Lopez, Smith and Crome came together and claimed they were innocent, they denied any misconduct and went to Southern Ohio District Court. They argued that that the school violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process (hearing). The due process law is related to the Fourteenth Amendment meaning that each person has ledge rights to have a fair notice and opportunity to be heard before any processing. At the time