1. Tommy Cerene
2. Argersinger v. Hamlin 1972
3.Jon Argersinger was a poor man charged with carrying a hidden weapon, a crime in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney.
4. The court ruled 9 - 0 decision. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court found that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes.
5. This ment that what Argersinger was sentenced to serve ninety days in jail.


Claire Crimando is doing United States vs. State of Indiana. Photo I.D.
1.Claire Crimando
2. United States vs. state of Indiana(1991)
3.Citizens of Indiana was pressured by the US. to make their citizens use photo I.D. when voting.
4. The U.S. won case. 5. Indiana now uses photo I.D. when voting. This make the state & country better becasue incase someone stole identity, ect.






1. Kylie Francisco
2. Brown vs. Board of Education, 1954
3. Linda Brown felt she was not treated equal because she was not allowed in the public schools. Some felt black childrens education suffered because of the segregation in schools.
4. The decision of the court was that they felt the schools were pretty much equal. The felt the education of the teachers, the building and equipment and transportation was about the same.
5. The decision about segregation is not in our schools today. The world has changed and many races attend school under one roof.



1.Derek Walsh
2.Dred Scott vs Sanford 1857
3.Dred Scott was an African American slave, who worked for a physician that moved into slave free teritory, and Dred Scott decided to sued for his freedom and his right to be a citzen of the U.S.
4.The decision in the case was that Dred Scott would not be granted citizenship,the judge based his decision on the veiw of the framers of the constitution, stating "the only rights and privloges African Americans were ment to have were those granted by their 'so-called' owners".
5. The decision meant that if a slave was living in a slave free zone, they still did not have any rights or freedoms as an American citizen. However in 1868, this decesion was over turned after the Civil War ended and the Fourteenth Amendment at the time after the war gave Dred Scott is Freedom and he did become a citizen of the United States of America.




1. Kate Lennox
2. Baker v. Carr (1962)
3. Baker alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.
4. Conclusion: In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.
5. This means

1.Kylie Francisco
2.Wisconcin vs. Yoder (1972)
3.Omish parents wanting to provide a private schooling for their children.
4. They demonstrated that their religious beliefs, their way of life, and the education of their kids in the role of the Omish community was valid in the state for their schooling.
5.That the omish people could continue to teach their kids in a private community and we all have a right to practice our religious beliefs.

1. Justine Collins
2. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000),
3. On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes. The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutored mandated automatic machine recount was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Bush — on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.
4. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
5. Every vote should be counted.

1. Juhie Patel
2. Minor v Happerset (1875)
3. Mrs. Minor went to register to vote. Happerset would not register her because she was a women. Minor argued that it was her 14th amendment right.
4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Happerset.
5. It let women know that they were not allowed to vote

1.Claire Romine
2. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
3.The Kraemer sold there house to the Shelley's which were a black couple and then the other property owners on his street because he made an agreement not to sell to blacks or Asians but that is just prejudice. They believed that it violated the 14th amendment...."equal protection under law" and the neighbors were not equal because they said he could only sell to whites.
4. The decision was that it the agreement between the property owner and the neighbors was private and it did not involve the state. Therefore it did not violate the 14th amendment. Then they argued that since it was brought to the Supreme Court it was a state thing and it did violate the 14th amendment because they were not treated equally
5. They decision meant that blacks were able to own property because they had equal protection. It impacted the country because then this meant that any race could own property and not just whites.


Lindsay Carswell
Baker vs. Carr 1962
The reson why this challanged the 14th amendment was because
This civil action was brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights. The complaint, alleging that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee apportioning the members of the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, "these plaintiffs and others similarly situated,are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by virtue of the debasement of their votes."
The court desided that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and also that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted. They noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 364 U.S. 898. We hold that the dismissal was error, and remand the cause to the District Court for trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I think that its not right to not have equal purtection for eveyone in the United States if they are a leagle citizen. I think if people who get naturalizied to the U.S.A should be able to vote.



steven penna M. L. B. v. S. L. J.

M..L.B.v. S.L.J. were married for the past 7 years untill they decided to divorse. M..L.B. was in jail for two years and when he came back his children were in the custidy of their mothers. After trying depritly to convince his wife to decieded who gets the kids legally he broght the matter to court saying the the due procces of law wasn't followed when the custidy of the children accuried. The court realised the he was right and the case was on. after looking more in to the mothers past they relised she was unfit to take care of the childrn and custidy went to the father.


1.Ryan Altieri
2.Strauder vs. West Vriginia1879
3.The plaintiff in error, a colored man, was indicted for murder in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, in West Virginia, on the 20th of October, 1874, and upon trial was convicted and sentenced.
4.The record was then removed to the Supreme Court of the State, and there the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. The present case is a writ of error to that court, and it is now, in substance, averred that at the trial in the State court the defendant (now plaintiff in error) was denied rights to which he was entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.


1. Matt Drozd
2. Munn v. Illinois 1876
3. Munn had been found guilty for surpassing the maximum storage of grain in his warehouse (granger laws) in Illinois he appealed saying fixing a maximum was taking property without due process of law.
4. The granger laws were upheld
5. Limitations can be set on the amount business owners can have in storage



shane k. is doing Chicago v. Morales

1. Kayla Weinstein
2. Paul v. Davis (1974)
3. A flyer which contained the name and picture of the respondent who was charged for shoplifting violated privacy as provided by Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees.
4. The court said that Davis (the one on the flyer) had not been deprived of any constitutional rights. The court had also said that the fourteenth amendment privacy rights did not cover what Davis was trying to accuse Paul of. Th 14th amendment secures the rights of marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. Not pictures and names psoted on flyers.
5. This court case probably cleared up the meaning of the 14th, this would be good for future references so no court cases wuold have to make it up to the surpreme court.


Casey is doing Duncan vs. Louisianas

1. Kristin Stetzel
2. Reynolds v. Simms (1964)
3. In this case, the 14th Amendment was challenged because the Equal Protection Clause of the amendment was violated.
4. There were over 30 lawsuits filed because the population in an area of Alabama had grown so much since the population census in 1900 and it wasn't a fair distribution of the votes. This was called redistricting.
5. A lower court in Alabama agreed that it was violating the 14th Amendment, so the Alabama Supreme Court brought the case to the US Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the Supreme Court decision and said that it did violate the Equal Protection Cluse of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. is a democracy and it is based on equal representation throughout whole country and people shouldn't be denied their right to be heard.

1. Haley Chute
2. Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)
3. They 14th Amendment was challenged because mentally retared, emotionally disturbed, hyperactive and kids with behavioral issues were not provided with an education.
4. The Supreme court ruled that these "exceptional" children's rights were being violated, and that the Board of Education must provide public schooling for these children along with hearing before to determine if the child was "exceptional".
5. This means that all children will get an education, regardless of their mental health and behavioral habits.

1.Rachel Sanford
2.gitlow vs. people (1925)
3.In this case, the 14th amendment was challenged because Gitlow wrote " the revolutionary age" and got fined. They thought that the federal court was going to have to deal with it because it was about freedom of speech and freedom of press.
4. What happened was that the state of New York thought had a case that the freedom of speech and the freedom of press should only be handled by the federal government. A man wrote "the revolutionary age" and he got fined.
5. This means we may not distribute flyers.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Maya: //Loving vs. Virginia(1967)//

In this case Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving wanted to get married. It was illegal to get married in Virginia, where they lived, because of certain laws preventing the marrage of a white and a black person, so they got married in Washington D.C. instead. Virginia refused to recognize the marriage, and prosecuted the Lovings. They went to court and got a one-year sentence that was later suspended, although the Lovings had to promise to leave the state and not return for twenty-five years. The Lovings moved to Washington D.C., and then sued Virginia again for the violation of the 14th amendment, but this time in federal court. The court agreed that reiterating that marraige is one of the basic civil rights of Americans, and that the state had no business dictating which races may or may not intermarry.


1. Mitchell Fliss
2. Baker vs. Carr (1962)
3. Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
4. In a 6-2 ruling, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.
5. This shows the country they cant bring every little cse to thew highest court in the nation.


1. Elizabeth Frye 2.Roe vs. Wade 1973 3. The court case was challegned by the decision of whether abortion is a violation of privacy against the 15th amendment. 4. The court decided that abortion is alllowed because prohibiting it would go against the Constitution and the 14th amendment 5. I think this case has a strong impact on our country but I do not agree with the case's decision. Many women these days are innvolved in underage pregnancy. They file for abortion because they are not responsible for the child. I think abortion should be prohibtied due to the lost lives of many unborn children. The decsion basicly states that abortion is still alllowed under law.

=

=----

1. Kate Lennox
2. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1968)
3. This amendment was challenged because it when against the Due Process Clause in the fourteenth amendment.
4. Yes the action did violate the fourteenth amendment which gives citizens the right to Due Process Clause.
5. This desition does not affect the rest of the country.
Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans vs. The Cresent City livestock landing and Slaughterhouse Co- Mandie Nick

1.Rushi Patel
2.Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)
3. Mr.Plessy was 1/8 black at his time, which was considered legally black. Under the fourtenth amendment everyone was garunteed equeal rights, well seperate but equal rights. When he bought a ticket for a train and sat sat in a white car, he was told to move. He didn't do this, and this got him arrested. He felt his 14th amendment rights were violated.
4.The justices in clear majority ruled againt Plaessy.
5. This meant that separation is allowed of races is allowed, but as long as they get the same thing, even if one is better. The "equal but seperate laws" reign over in that period of time because of this decision.

1.Tanya Townsend
2.Sipuel v. Board of Regents,1948
3.Ada Sipuel applied at the University of Oklahoma, the only taxpayer funded law school in the State of Oklahoma at the time, and was denied because of race. She petitioned the Board because it went against her right of the 14th amendment.
4.The court ruled that the state of Oklahoma must provide instruction for Blacks equal to that of Whites, requiring the admission of qualified black students to previously all-white state law schools, reversing the Supreme Court of Oklahoma decision.
5.Because of Sipuel all schools must admit students of all races. Many african-americans would not be excepted into schools if it weren't for Sipuel.

1. Bianca Faria 2. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 3. Because of segregation, there were separate schools for education which was unequal. This was a violation of equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4. During the time of World War II, African Americans were demanding racial descrimination to be over. Because of this, the Court overturned the decision of "separate but equal." In addition, the justices ruled that separated schools are unequal beacuse they are racially apart from one another. 5. This decision means that there are no separate schools because of race. If it weren't for Brown v. Board of Education, there would still be separate schools and other public facilities for African Americans.

1. Devin O 2. Griswold v Connecticut 3. Griswold broke a Connecticut law, taking a drug that prevented conception, but the right to due process was violated. 4. The Court overturned the conviction on the grounds that it violated rights to privacy and due process. 5. This meant Griswold was released and the law was invalidated.

1. Billy Bliss 2. Wyoming vs. Houghton 1999 3. A police officer found drugs and other substances in Houghton's car when he was driving. Though the police officer did not have a warrant to search the car, Houghton challenged the case. 4. The court said that the policeman didn't need a search warrant and was able to search the car if he had a good enough reason for it. Houghton was found guilty. 5. This decision meant that the Wyoming policeman was allowed to search the car because he believe there was drugs in it. Colleen is doing Bush vs. Gore 2000

1.Chrissy Scaglione
2. Goss v. Lopez
3. Several high school students,including Dwight Lopez, were suspended from school for destroying school property and distrupting the school's learning environment. They were not given a hearing before or after their suspension. School authorities said that a state law allowed them to suspend students for up to ten days without a hearing.
4. In a 5-4 desicion, the court ruled that the school was taking away the student's right to duw process of law. Permitting suspension without a hearing is unconstitutional. They also said that the hearing could be an informal one. The student(s) would be given an explanation of the evidence against them, and an opportunity to tell their side of the story.
5. This shows that you cannot deprive anyone's due process rights, even students. The school didn't even give them a chance to explain, violating the Fourteenth amendment.

Claire C. is doing-Indiana vs.United States Graham

1. Alexanderv. Holmes County Board of Education (1969) Kevin is doing Gitlow v. New York (1925) 1. David Manno 2. Butchers' benevolent association of New Orleans v. the crescent city Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (1873) 3. The Amendment was challenged because the court argued that the Amendment applied to rights associated with United States citizenship but not to those with state citizenship and only prevented states from interfering with the former. 4. In a 5 to 4 decision Louisiana had not violated the fourteenth Amendment Rights by granting a monopoly on the slaughterhouse business to one company for New Orleans. 5. This means that one company can operate a slaughter house in New Orleans. The impact on the country was that many people were getting brutally murdered.

=

=----

=

=

1.Tom Keller 2.Muller v. Oregon (1908) 3.The reason the amendment was challenged was because the state of Oregon thought the "privelages and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment forbidded them from employing women for working in laundries and factories for more than ten hours. 4.The decision was that the Oregon law that women couldn't work in laundries or factories for more than ten hours in a day was unconstitutional and Muller was innocent. 5.The decision meant that women should be treated equally with men in all cases. This impacted our country by setting the example to treat everyone no matter what sex, race, or religion.

=

=----

=

=

1. Eryk Banatt
2. Harper vs. virginia Board of elections (1966)
3. This Case is under the fourteenth amendment because Virginia citizens filed a case against virginia's poll tax, claiming it was unconstitutional.
4. The supreme court overruled the decision, and decided that it was, in fact, unconstitutional.
5. This decision establishes that poll tax is unconstitutional because it prevents all social classes from voting, so only rich or wealthy landowners can vote.


1.Chris West
2. Gideon vs. Wainwright(1942)
3. The reason this amendment was challanged was because Gideon did not have a due process. This man could not afford an attorney so he asked for one and they denied. he did not have a due proccess.
4. The dessision in this case wasc he ended up being guilty of stealing.
5. this dession showed that he did not have the right to have an attorney even though he should be able to.









1. Colleen Burdsall 2. Bush vs. Gore 2000 3.The 2000 Presidental election between George w. Bush and Al Gore was so close in the polls in Florida they had to amanual recount. Stating that it violated th 14th amendment, Bush webt to court to stop the count. 4.The 14 th amendment says that no state can deprive a citizen of life liberty or property without due process of law. Since there was no way to judge each disputed vote equally the court ruled in Bush's favor and stopped the recount. 5. The im pact was Bush was elected President and voting machines were changed.1. christian ruiz 2.PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. 2006 3.the amendment was challenged because some schools were segregated 4 the court dicided that they should stop segregating schools 5. the schools are now able to have blacks and whites in a schools 1: Abbey Thomas 2: United States vs. Nixon; 1974 3: violation of federal statutes by certain staff members of the White House and political supporters of the President 4: The District Court's order was appealable as a final order. it was properley in the Court of Appeals, when the petition for certiorari before judgment was filed in this Court, and is now properly before this Court for review. Although such an order is normally not final and subject to appeal, an exception is made. 5: It means that presidential employees shouldnt have extra privelages. The impact was that this taught usa a lesson. victoria bustamante is doing Tennesse Student Assiistance Corporation Petitoiner v. Pamela L. Hood Jess is doing Lochner v. New York 1905
1. Jess Brucker
2. Lochner v. New York 1905
3. Lochner was convicted under a New York law prohibiting bakery employees from working more than 10 hours per day.
4. The decision was that the New York law was not a constitutional regulation of health and safety of a workplace under state police power.
5. The decision ment that Lochner was not convicted because it wasn't a constitutional regulation. It impacted the country by showing bakeries can work people more then 10 hours a day or 20 hours a week.

1.Ryan Odom
2. Boynton v. Virginia
3. Mr. Boynton refused to leave the white section in a resturant. Mr. Boynton appeled the case.
4. The sepreme court ruled that it was against the law to reman in a area fordbin by the law.
5.The sereme court ruled that the lower verdict stands. This case helped lead up to the repaling of the law.

1. Ali Surdoval
2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898
3. The Amendment was challenged because the United States denied Wong Kim Ark entry to the U.S. after visiting family in China. He was born in California so that makes him a citizen. The Chinese Exclusion Acts had just been passed. They denied Chinese immigrants citizenship. Could the government deny naturalization to a person born in the U.S.?
4. The court decided that the government could not deny naturalization to anyone born in the U.S.
5. The effect on our country was that now Chinese American citizens did not have to worry about being denied entry on coming back to America.

1. Kristina Genovese
2. Plyler vs. doe (1982)
3. Texas passed a law which didn't allow the education of non U.S. citezens. They did this for three reasons: 1. It would prevent illegal immigrants from wanting to enter the state
2. The state would not be burdened with educating illegal immigrants
3. The state would not be educating people who would likely leave the state.
They didn't know if the state denying the education of non U.S. citizens would deprive them of equal protection under the law.
4. The supreme court decided that a state may not deny a public education of non U.S. citizens unless they can show a substantial state interest.The Court ruled none of the three reasons given by Texas were substantial enough to allow the state to deny a public education to these illegal immigrants children.
5. This will protect people that are not citizens to let their children have a public education.


1. Kristin Hart
2. Gitlow v. New York (1925)
3. Benjamin Gitlow, a member of a radical faction of the Socialist Party, was charged with violating the New York State Criminal Anarchy Act of 1902 for writing "The Revolutionary Age" and the "Left Wing Manifesto." He appealed, claiming that the Act violated the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. The Supreme court had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law.
5. This case impacted our country because it prohibited everybody from distributing copies of panphlets.

Sasha J.
Griggs vs. Duke Power 1970
The Amendment was challanged because Duke Power refused told Griggs that the job he wanted was for white people only.
The decision was 8-0 that it was in favor of Griggs and that his right to have that job no matter the race.
It effected the country by changing the 14th Amendment to people of any race can have a job without the fear of rejection by rasism.

1.Drew Stirnweis

2.Gitlow v.s. New York. 1925.
3.Gitlow printed unlawfully things to the goverment.The goverment thought it might go agenst to 14th amendment.
4.The court decided that it did not.The court said there is no reason to speak or publish with out responsibility.
5.This ment there was no reason to publish what he published.

1.Jon Dagati

2.Bolling v. Sharpe

3.In 1949 a group of parents tried to get there kids(including Spottswood Bolling) admitted into a new school.They were refused because they were black.

4. The court used the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and applied it to the fifth amendment because the fourteenth amendment did not apply to Washington, D.C. They ruled that keeping blacks from the school was a violation of the due process of law.

5. There was a big controversey over using these amedments in Washington, D.C. The court said that segregation was unlawful.


  1. Hiba Rahman
  2. Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003)
  3. The amendment was challenged because Barbara Grutter, a Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 Law School Admission Test score, was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School. She said that the university had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  4. The Supreme Court's final decision was that Barbara Grutter was allowed to go into the University of Michigan Law School because it "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
  5. The affect on our country was that now, people know they have a every right to go to a college they want to and that everyone has the same chance as getting in; it is not because of thier race, religion, or background. Everyone has an equal chance of getting into a college.


Cameron K is doing City of Boerne vs. Flores(1997)

sarah rhodes is doing MISSOURI V. LEWIS Cameron K is doing Phillip Morris U.S.A. vs. Williams ( 2006-2007)

Citation: 16 Wall. 36 (1873) Concepts: Katie Lennox is doing Lemon v. Kurtzman

1. Noelle Wahad
2. Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952
3. This amendment was challenged because it is a crime to distribute racist leaflets out in any public place.
4. Illinois made a law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchasity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion."
5. It meant people in Illinois couldn't hand out racist leaflets or anything else along those lines.

Kristina is doing **Plyler v. Doe**

1.sam margalotti

2.lochner vs. new york-1905

3.the amendment waschallenged because bakers were given inhumane work hours.
4. the decision was that the work hour law was overruled and every employed person could only work so many hours in day.
5. it meant that the employed could only work so many hours at once.

ana is doing Gebhart v. Belton.

=

=1.Marki Wolfson 2. Baker v. Carr 1962
3.the reason the amendment was challenged because in some urban ares there was not enough lawyers for the area so
they did not gain the protection as guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
4. The courts decision was it got sent back to federal courts.
5. The impact on the country was, even though they are part of the U.S.A the
urban areas without enough Lawyers are not protected as said in the 14th amendment.

Juhie is doing Minor v Happerset

Sam bird is doing Marbury v. Madison

Alex Scotland - Plessy v. Ferguson

tommy cerene- SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al. v. ROE, et al., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

1.Dan Hawk

2.Brown vs. Board of education [1954]

3. The 1st provision of the 14th amendment, "Equal protection for all", was applied to this case. Brown, in a class action suit, sued the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education. Brown argued that the permitted segregation of the elementary schools caused his black child to be enrolled in a school further from her home than was necessary. Due to her race, she wasn't permitted to enroll into the school closest to her residence.

4. The suit was lost in district court. Shortly thereafter, there was a change in the political atmosphere in Topeka. Brown was heard in Supreme Court in 1954, at which time the Supreme Court over ruled the District Court's decision, therefore, Brown won.

5. This decision marked the beginning of the end of segregation. It's impact on this country is that, regardless of race, color, or creed, can get an equal education.


1.Christian Gutowski 2.Miranda v. Arizona 3.Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and armed robbery but was not told he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law. He felt his due proccess of law rights were being violated. 4.The Court said that prosecutors could not use his written confession against him in a court of law because they did not inform him of his "right to remain silent". He was convicted on other evidence and sent to prison for 11 years. 5. Citizens learned that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law and a cop has to tell you that when you are being arrested.

1. Lindsay Muhs
2. Dartmouth Collage vs. Woodward, 1819
3. New Hampshire legislature tried to make Dartmouth Collage from a private school to a public school. So they sued.
4. The decision was that Dartmouth could remain a private school.
5. You cant pass a law that violate a contract.


Christian Ruiz
Schecter Poultry Corp. v The United States
Too much power to the states was givin to the states
The court ruled that power be lessened
this made the government more tight on how much power they give to the states

1.Alex Ashmore
2. Korematsu v. United States
3. In 1941 Congress passed a law called the Japanese Exclusion Act. According to this law, all those of Japanese decent had to be removed from the west coast of the United States because we were at war with Japan and the Japanese Americans living on the coast constituted a threat to national security. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen, challenged this law in court. He claimed that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed all citizens equal protection under the law.
4. The court ruled that Japanese American citizens did in fact represent a threat to national security. However, the United States government later apologized to the families of Japanese Americans effected by this decision.
5. This has made an impact on our country in which all citizens, no matter who we are at war with, are guaranteed equal protection under the law.
Tyler Roy
Bakke vs. University of California 1974
Alan Bakke applied to the university of california and had a much better score than most other people. However, He was white and to get in, he would take a reserved minority seat. He was denied while minorities with much lower gpas were getting in. He filed suit to the Superior court of California, saying that his 14th amendment rights were violated. The court favored him, 8 to 1, and the University appealed to the US Supreme Court.
After 8 months, Bakke was allowed into the school.
It changed the country because now the universities do not decide admittance by race or color.

Alex Cervino
Association of New Orleans vs. the Crescent City Slaughterhouse co.
The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed an act granting slaughterhouses. New Orleans however, forbid slaughterhouses to be built.
The judges finally ruled that it was necessary to build slaughterhouses.
(boo slaughterhouses >=^( )


1.Tori Gonzalez
2. Jones vs Flowers; Argued Tuesday January 17th, 2005--Decided Wednesday, April 26, 2006
3. In 1993 Gary Jones moved out of his house his wife continued to live theres. After several years of unpaid property taxes the tax authority sent a notice that the house would be sold. The letter was returned unclaimed because Gary Jones was not living there. The house was sold to Linda Flowers. Gary Borwn sued stating that his 14th amendment right to due process was violated because he was not notified.
4. The Supreme Court ruled that "additional reasonable steps" should have been taken to notify him. Due process clause
does not require the person be notified but that reasonable attempts are made. After the first letter was returned a note could have been posted on the door or another letter sent. The government knew he did not receive the letter sent.
5. The government must make reasonable attempts before taking action. People are entitled to a hearing and should be given the opportunity to rectify a situation



1.Kevin Schoenfeld
2.Gitlow vs. New York 1925
3.Gitlow was a member of the Socialist party he was arrested for trying to overthrow the government by publishing a pamphlet in which he was trying to convince people to conduct massive strikes and other actions that would hurt the goverment. He was convicted and sent to jail so he appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 1st Amendment gave him a right to express his freedom of speech.
4.The Court overturned his conviction because his absolute freedom of speech was protected by the due process clause (14th amendment).
5.This ruling was important because even thoughs Gitlow's actions were against the goverment the Constitution in the 1st & 14th Amendments protects an individuals right to express their opinions without being put in jail.