· What do the 1st, 4th, 11th, and 14th Amendments protect?
1st: freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
4th: against illegal searches and seizures.
11th: suits against the states.
14th: protects (asserted) citizenship rights, including the privileges and immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of law entitled to US citizens.
· What is due process? What are 2 types?
Due process arises in two amendments: the 5th and 14th. The 14th states that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Essentially, then, as stated in the 14th, due process is the legal mechanism that ensures States do not abridge the rights of a citizen without first having undergone the all the legal processes entitled to the citizen under the Constitution. Those legal processes are the other type of due process, as enumerated in the 5th amendment: “no person…[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments’ enumeration of rights to due process is in the object specified in the Amendments’ language: the 5th states that no one be deprived due process, while the 14th says that States may not deny due process. Therefore, it can be seen that the 14th seeks to ensure States adhere to allowing due process of law, while the 5th asserts that a person is entitled to due process. Thus, the 5th is applicable at both the federal and state level, while the 14th affects to force States to provide for due process.
· Describe the federal court system from lowest to highest court:
US District Courts: 94 districts divide the union and are the entry point for the federal court system. District court is the only court in the federal system where trials take place. District courts handle federal criminal cases as defined by federal law, as well as the following civil cases: those alleging violation of a national law; those brought against the national government; those between citizens of different states when the amount exceeds $50,000.
US Court of Appeals: 13 Circuit courts handle appeals from the US District Courts, as well as appeals from federal administrative agencies. Appellate proceedings are based upon the rulings made and procedures followed in the trial courts; defendants may appeal procedural matters that contribute to the receipt of a verdict if there is a question of the validity or legality of those procedures.
US Supreme Court: As the final court in the system, the Supreme Court has the final say on a case or law. A very few cases come to the Supreme Court through original jurisdiction, as prescribed by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution relating to ambassadors, public ministers, and cases involving one or more States. Most cases, though, come through the US Court of Appeals. To get to the Supreme Court, a litigant must have first exhausted all levels of the State court system, and the case must raise a federal question: an issue covered by the Constitution, federal laws, or national treaties. Once passing these requirements, potential cases must make it to the Court docket by receiving a review (via a petition for certiorari), then receiving the assent of at least four or more justices. Upon arrival on the Court’s docket, cases flow through the decision-making process, through briefs, oral argument, conference, and, finally, the Court’s opinion, which settles the case permanently.
· What 3 states are in the 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals?
Florida, Georgia, and Alabama
· What is academic freedom? Defined in the text as “the right of teachers to teach, free from external constraint, censorship, or interference,” academic freedom is a difficult topic to define. The text refers to several cases that seem to show that a teacher’s claim to academic freedom does not carry much weight in a question of its use. Essentially, the idea is that teachers should be free to teach in their own way, as long as that way does not run afoul of previously established guidelines or restrictions, whether by order or precedent; while protected by the courts, academic freedom can only be expected to hold up to a limit in court, judging by recent precedent.
· What is the Lemon test? In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court struck down a state program that would have helped pay the salaries of teachers hired by parochial schools to give instruction in secular subjects. The justices proposed a three-pronged test for determining the constitutionality of government programs and laws under the establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) of the 1st Amendment. The Lemon test states that government programs: must have a secular purpose; their primary effect must not be to advance or inhibit religion; must not entangle the government excessively with religion.
Cases for review:
· Engle v. Vitale, (1962): Supreme Court struck down the reading of a nondenominational prayer in New York’s public schools. The opinion wrote that official state approval of prayer was an unconstitutional attempt on the part of the state to establish a religion.
· Pickering v. Board of Education, (1968): Court overturned lower courts’ upholding of a decision to dismiss a teacher for writing a defaming letter against the local school board, published in the local newspaper, saying that the appellant’s rights to freedom of speech were violated.
· Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, (1969): Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision to uphold the School District’s action of removing students from class for wearing black armbands protesting the conflict in Vietnam. Court Opinion stated that the “Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny [students their] form of expression.” (Established “reasonable fear of disruption” standard).
· Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. (1987): Supreme Court overturned appellate reversal invalidating a principal’s censorship of controversial articles in a school newspaper. Court ruled that the appellate court had not provided sufficient support to the argument that a school newspaper constituted a public forum, and, as such, was not free from the restraints imposed on school organs, as “members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school” in the contents of the newspaper. Thus, the students’ 1st Amendment rights had not been violated.
· Denno V. School Board of Volusia County (2000): Supreme Court affirms a District Court dismissal of claims on the basis of qualified immunity against administrators who had suspended a student for displaying a Confederate flag, holding that there is, and can be, no clear case of precedent by which to make an a priori judgment to an effect that would allow such a finding. Furthermore, the Court upheld the summary judgment granted to the School Board by finding that the school had not established a precedent of banning the flag and that the final decision was not up to the principals, but to the board itself, making the suspension subject to the Board. As no evidence was found to the effect that there was a precedent of banning the flag, the Board could not be held liable of violating 1st Amendment rights, according to the potentiality of liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services.
· Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma v. Earls (2002): School district implemented mandatory drug testing for extracurricular activities, which was subsequently challenged. Circuit Court ruled against the Board, but the Supreme Court overturned their decision. Citing that students in “competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on their privacy as do athletes," the Court ruled that, by participating in extracurricular activities, students subject to the policy have a limited expectation of privacy.
· Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002): Supreme Court upheld a Cleveland, Ohio school voucher program. Established strict requirements for constitutionality, particularly that the program must be neutral with respect to religion, with the ultimate purpose of advancing secular education.