Bong Hits 4 Jesus. If you are on the Supreme Court, how do you rule? You be the judge.

Transcription

1 Bong Hits 4 Jesus The Case: On January 24, 2002, students and staff were permitted to leave classes at Juneau-Douglas High School to attend a school-sanctioned and schoolsupervised event, to watch the Olympic torch pass by. 18-year-old Joseph Frederick, who was late for school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off of school grounds. Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS". Frederick claimed he had first seen the phrase on a snowboard sticker. When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it. Morse initially suspended Joseph Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick refused to give the names of his fellow participants and quoted Thomas Jefferson on free speech. Frederick appealed his suspension to the superintendent, who denied his appeal but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal to the superintendent (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, The case eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Question: School administrators have an interest in limiting student speech at a school event that promotes drug use. Students have an interest in protecting their right to express themselves without fearing punishment.

2 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District The Case: In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa student Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), her brother John Tinker (15 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after New Years Day 1966 when their protest had been scheduled to end. Their case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Question: Students should be allowed to speak their minds and express themselves freely. School administrators have a right to maintain order and restrict certain types of speech on a school campus, speech that could be disruptive.

3 Schenck v. United States The Case: Charles Schenck circulated flyers to recently drafted men during World War I. The flyer, which cited the Thirteenth Amendment's provision against "involuntary servitude," urged the men to "assert their opposition to the draft," which it described as morally wrong. The flyers proposed peaceful resistance to the war, including protest and petition. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Question: The United States has an interest in suppressing opposition during a time of national crisis (such as a war). However, in a democracy, citizens should be able to express opposition to their government.

4 Miranda v. Arizona The Case: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape. He later confessed to robbery and attempted rape under interrogation by police. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Miranda's court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which affirmed the trial court's decision. Miranda s case then went to the US Supreme Court. The Question: Law enforcement has many crimes to investigate, and their job was made easier by Ernesto Miranda voluntarily confessing. However, was Miranda aware that he had the right to remain silent? Did he know that he had the right to an attorney before questioning?

5 Kyllo v. United States The Case: Danny Lee Kyllo had been charged and convicted with growing marijuana in his Oregon home after a search was conducted. A federal agent had made observations with an infrared camera outside of Kyllo's home which showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the roof and side walls of the home. (The assumption is, to grow indoors, one needs to provide lots of light so plants can photosynthesize.) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marijuana plants growing in the home. Kyllo first tried to suppress the evidence, then pled guilty. Kyllo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court on the grounds that such observations with a thermal-imaging device constitutes an illegal search. There, the conviction was upheld. After that, the case went to the US Supreme Court. The Question: Law enforcement should be able to use the resources necessary to catch criminals, but were Mr. Kyllo s constitutional rights violated? Did the police go too far in their search?

6 Kent v. United States The case: Morris Kent, 16, who had been on probation since he was 14 for burglary and theft, was arrested and charged with three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington, D.C. Because of the seriousness of the charges and Morris's previous criminal history, the prosecutor moved to try Morris in adult court. Morris's lawyer wanted the case to stay in juvenile court where the penalties were much less severe. He had planned to argue that Morris had a mental illness that should be taken into account when deciding where he would be tried. Without a hearing, the judge sided with the prosecutor and sent Morris to adult court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. Morris appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case should have remained in juvenile court. The Question: Juveniles accused of a crime have the right to humane treatment. However, there are times when juveniles commit severe crimes, crimes that usually only adults commit. If you are on the Supreme Court, how do you rule? You be the judge.

7 Egbert v. Nicholson The case: In 2007, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs allowed military families to choose any of 38 authorized headstone images. The list included commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie. The Wiccan pentacle, a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle, was not on the list. Wiccans worship the Earth and believe they must give to the community. Some consider themselves "white" or good witches, pagans or neo-pagans. Approximately 1,800 active-duty service members identified themselves as Wiccans, according to 2005 Defense Department statistics. Kathleen Egbert, the daughter of World War II veteran Abraham Kooiman, sued the federal government in the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to get the Wiccan symbol on her father s tombstone. The Question: Traditionally, Wicca has not been recognized as an official religion in the United States. However, in the last 50 years, Wicca has gained popularity and acceptance. Should a Wiccan soldier in the United States Army be buried with the pentacle on his headstone, a symbol of the Wicca faith? What do you think happened in this case? You be the judge?

8 Salazar v. Buono The case: In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross along with a plaque commemorating the "Dead of All Wars in the middle of the Mojave Desert. They never got permission from the government to put up the cross, but for decades nobody seemed to care. In 1994, 1.6 million acres of desert -- including the land with the cross on it -- was transferred to the National Park Service. A few years later, a resident wanted to put up a Buddhist shrine near the cross. The request was denied. A federal court ordered the cross removed earlier this decade. A judge ruled that until the dispute is settled the cross had to be covered. In 2001 Congress got involved. Lawmakers prohibited the Park Service from spending federal dollars to remove the display. A year later, they designated the site a national memorial similar to the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore. In addition, Congress agreed to transfer one acre of land around the cross in exchange for five private acres inside the preserve. A San Francisco, Californiabased appeals court turned that offer down, saying it failed to satisfy Constitutional concerns. The land swap "would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve" the court said. The Supreme Court ruled on the case in spring of The Question: The Supreme Court has traditionally taken a case-by-case approach to similar First Amendment cases. Among other things, it has supported the mention of "God" on U.S. currency. At the same time, it has banned governmentsponsored prayer in schools. Is the cross a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?