Supreme Court Case: US V. Tennessee

The case is brought to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiff Charles Baker suing Secretary of State of Tennessee Joe Carr, for the failure to redraw the legislative voting boundaries, something that was due over 60 years prior. A law that Tennessee legislature apportioned both houses and provided reapportionment every ten years on the basis of the population reported by the census, but failed to do since 1901. Baker argued that the population had shifted from the rural areas to the urban areas and that he himself was being affected and was being denied his equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. He sought to the court that that the state officials should hold an at-large election or they should halt the election process until the

Shelby County v. Holder is a hugely important in the United States Supreme Court case related to the (whether or not something agrees with the Constitution) of to legal rules of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which demands certain states and local governments to get federal preclearance before putting into use of any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4,which contains the coverage formula that decides which legal controls are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of(unfair treatment based on skin color, age, etc.) in voting.I disagree with the decision because The big pattern of (unfair treatment based on skin color, age, etc.) that led the Court to before that judge as corrected in Section 5 of the Voting Rights

First and foremost Police officers are instructed during their grooming at the police academy to use deadly force when stopping a fleeing suspect, however Police Officers are also taught, but when there are no other options. As we have learned from a landmark case Tennessee V. Garner, That the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the United States is subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision. Under “Garner, deadly force may be permissible if “the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has charged a criminal offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical injury”. Upon watching the video several times it appears to me that suspect Scott was not in

The state should use citizen voting age population, so there will be less differential in the voters between different districts. For a long period of time, the Supreme Court doesn’t accept the redistricting claims of political question: is the Constitution guarantees that each day job a republican form of government for a long time. It was all left for the Congress and the states to fix the puzzle. However, Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court decided to hear the claims under the equal protection clause and noticed that one-person, one-vote can arise the equal protection clause of the constitution (Oyez, 1). This comes to a conclusion that the Supreme Court should develop some political philosophy, which enforce all states to follow it. However, it turns out that the supreme court has muddled through the definition of one person, one-vote and how state legislators should be working on at this

Facts:          On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over

employed. Control it through technology by reducing the smoke while allowing the industry to prosper. (116-117).

Texas Legislation has been known to be extremely controversial. But, before it can be described, for whom the legislation

They believed that the framers of the Constitution did not consider black people equal to white and had no jurisdiction to Dred Scott's case. Moreover stating from Article III of the Constitution, which wrote that federal courts only hear from citizens of the United States and slaves were unpermitted to speak up in courts. Favoring the Missouri Supreme Court and the federal circuit court, the Supreme Court alleged the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Many dissenting arguments to this case included Justice McLean, who pointed out that five out of all thirteen states allowed black males to vote, which was only a right for citizens, therefore indirectly blacks in those states should be considered as free men.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

The United States Supreme Court refused to enter into the political process of redistricting in Colegrove v. Green() stating, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.”() In Baker v. Carr() twenty years later, the Court changed its mind, entering the redistricting arena. Ever since entering the “political thicket,” the Court has continuously failed to find a “judicially discernible and manageable standard” of the legality of gerrymandering. ()

carr. At matter in Baker was a ancient Tennessee allotment. Rendering to Tennessee electorates, the outmoded distribution was a hushed gerrymander. Even though the residents in urban voting districts had amplified, Tennessee had no alterations to replicate this populace shift; therefore, sporadically occupied rural regions had the identical representation in the local administration as did tightly populous city districts. The local Court in Baker did not influence a result on the cogency of the Tennessee districting; this issue recognized only that the matter of districting was fare and not purely a political

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

The Supreme Court of the United States has produced many infamous cases in its existence as a part of the three branches of government. It has seen many cases pertaining in particular to the Voting Rights Act initially enacted in 1965. There are two sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that are of particular concern in most cases, sections 4 and 5. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain states, districts, and localities to obtain federal preclearance before making any changes or alterations to their election laws or practices (Overby). Section 4 specifies a formula for determining whether a geographical area is subject to section 5 (Overby). When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 it was originally restricted to five years. However, since then there have been multiple extensions. Congress extended it for the first time in 1970 for another five years, followed by another extension in 1975 for seven more years, and for another twenty-five years in 1982 (The Oyez Project). When the twenty-five year reauthorization came to expire in 2006, Congress yet again extended the 1965 Voting Rights Act for another twenty-five years (The Oyez Project). Since its passing and continuous reauthorizations, there have been many attempts to declare the Voting Rights Act, specifically sections 4 and 5 unconstitutional. A distinct case that warrants a closer look is the case of Shelby County v. Holder.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a