Multiple Perspectives Lesson Plansbs.mnsu.edu/socialstudies/studentportfolios/sara_beyer_3.pdf · Multiple Perspectives Lesson Plan ... y.html ... Precedent- prior case whose principles

Multiple Perspectives Lesson Plan

MN BOT Standards: Time, Continuity, and Change: Through the study of the past and its legacy, learners examine the institutions, values, and beliefs of people in the past, acquire skills in historical inquiry and interpretation, and gain an understanding of how important historical events developments have shaped the modern world

Understandings: Historical knowledge and the concept of time as socially influenced construction that lead historians to be selective in questions they seek to answer and in the evidence they use

Learning Objective: o Different interpretation of the influences of social, geographic, economic, and cultural

factors on the history of local areas, states, nations, and the world o Contributions of philosophies, ideologies, individuals, institutions, and key events and

turning point in shaping history o Importance of knowledge of the past to an understanding of the present and to

informed decision-making about the future o Course Level: 9th - 12th grade (more so 11th and 12th grade)

Assessment Evidence

What do you want the students to know? o Understand the how the Supreme court gets a court case o Analyze the importance a decision is on the nation and as a citizen/student o Recognize and comprehend vocabulary (can be confusing) o Recognize importance of a swing vote and the affect it can play in the judiciary system o What do you want your students to be able to do?

Apply the court decisions to how it affects the students' lives Go beyond the decision and think of the consequences if it was an alternate

decision Group Accountability (Formative)

Presentation points Group answers all the questions from worksheet Individual Accountability (Summative)

Person answers their question during their presentation for points

Grade on participation quiz at end for listening

Learning Plan

Key Vocabulary/Language: o Dissenting decision o Petitioner/Appellant o Respondent/Appellee o Affirmative action o Precedent

o Swing Vote o Judicial Review o Supremacy clause

How does key vocabulary help enable students meet learning objective? o There are many key words that have special meaning into the judiciary courts. Students

must understand the vocab before they can understand the trial they will be reading. o Guideline:

What is the importance of the Supreme Court? How does the Supreme Court's decision affect an individual, the population, and

nation? What if the ruling was alternate?

How differentiate for all learners? o I will divide the classroom into groups upon learning capability and student's individual

interest (help keep certain students interested in the project). o Materials needed/resources required

4 separate court case papers Worksheet guideline http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/qt/roe_wade_whatif.htm http://www.gale.cengage.com/free_resources/whm/trials/roe.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/tp/District-of-Columbia-v-

Heller.htm http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915monda

y.html http://uspolitics.about.com/od/supremecourt/p/swing_vote.htm http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/supreme-court-case-study-bush-v-

gore.html http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/

Schedule of Activities

Day One

Read How a Case Gets to the United States Supreme Court handout as in introduction to

the topic as a class (Group reading). This will familiarize the students with the judiciary courts.

I'll ask questions to see how much the kids understand and what we need to focus on before we

go to the cases. Cover all the questions and the vocabulary.

Divide the classroom into five groups (But they don't have to separate because there

won't be enough time to get to questions). Each group will be given a specific Supreme Court

case and material for the case. The students should individually read their case. Student's should

have examined the questions and wrote down ideas and bring to class the next day.

(Cases material later in lesson plan)

Day Two

Have students get into groups. As a group they must become experts on their case and

be able to present it to the class. Each student must answer one question and be in charge of

telling the class the answer to room. Today the students work on project together and present

next day.

(See below for worksheet for presentation)

Day Three

Each group presents and class discussion after each case. End of the hour I will ask

five random questions from the presentations for participation points.

Summary

We often hear and learn the rulings of the Supreme Court. But what does that

matter? This lesson plan was implanted for exactly that question. What does this ruling mean

and what becomes of it is what I want the students to draw to realize. I want them to go beyond

just learning but rather applying it to their lives. The cases they individually read and the one's

their classmates will be learning about will allow them to grasp a larger perspective one five

different Supreme Court cases. I chose cases that became a 5-4 vote. This way the emphasis of

what if the split Justice ruled the other way would make the question more possible.

The students have to independently conclude how a court case could affect them. That

draws in to aspects of political opinion, personal beliefs and values impacted in their lives

through culture. Because it is focusing on political organization the students must learn and

understand the concept of where the power is coming from and how and who these laws affect

society to stay cohesive.

My Notes

dissenting opinion- a decision written by a justice in the

minority in a particular case in which the justice wishes to

express his/her reasoning in the case

A petitioner is a person who pleads with governmental institution for a legal remedy or a redress

of grievances, through use of a petition.

In the courts the petitioner (sometimes called the plaintiff) may seek a legal remedy if the

state or another private person has acted unlawfully. Then they will submit a plea to a court to

resolve the dispute.

TO the government: On the other hand, the petitioner may be complaining against the law it to

"... make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for redress of grievances".

A petitioner need not seek a change to an existing law. Often, petitioners speak against (or in

support of) legislative proposals as these progress.

Respondent: one who answers in various legal proceedings (as in equity cases) (2) : the

prevailing party in the lower court

appellee n. in some jurisdictions the name used for the party who has won at the trial court level,

but the loser (appellant) has appealed the decision to a higher court. Thus the appellee has to file

a response to the legal brief filed by the appellant. In many jurisdictions the appellee is called the

"respondent".

appellant

n

1. a person who appeals

2. (Law) Law the party who appeals to a higher court from the decision of a lower tribunal

adj

Affirmative action: government policies or programs that seek to address past injustices against

specified efforts to provide members of these groups with access to educational and employment

opportunities

Judicial Review- power of the courts to review and, if necessary, declare actions of the

legislative and executive branches invalid or unconstitutional

Supremacy Clause-Article VI of constitution-laws passed by the national government and all

treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land" and superior to all laws adopted by any state or

any subdivisions, reviewed by the Courts

Precedent- prior case whose principles are used by judges as the basis for their decisions in

present cases

*most cases reach the supreme court through writ of certiorari -is granted whenever four of the

nine justices agree to review a decision of a lower court. An individual who loses in lower

courts can file a petition within 90 days for a writ of certiorari

CASE WORKSHEET AND PRESENTATION OUTLINE

What year did your court case take place? ________________________________________

Who (people, state, institution, organization) was involved in your case?

______________________________________________________________________________

Who was the appellant? _________________________________________________________

Who was the appellee? __________________________________________________________

Who won in the first court hearing?

______________________________________________________________________________

Second court? ____________________________________________________________

Supreme Court Ruling?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What was the Supreme Court's reasoning (think of precedents and laws of the land)?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What if the Supreme Court ruled the decision the other way?..... so answer these questions:

What would have been the alternative ruling?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What consiquences would it had on the parties involved in the

case?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

How would have the ruling affected the nation

(America)?____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_

How would have it affected you personally (each person in the group needs to have a answer on

this. This is where each person's answer can be different)?

GROUP ONE - CASE 1: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) (5-4) decision affirmative action

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Issue: Affirmative Action in College

Bottom Line: Colleges Can Use Race as a Factor in Admissions

Background In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of

Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and good

standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school's affirmative action policy,

which considered race as a factor in admissions. Michigan and many other universities use

affirmative action to increase the number of minority students admitted. Grutter claimed that

Michigan admitted less-qualified minority applicants in violation of federal civil rights laws and

the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens "equal protection" under the law.

Ruling The Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. "Student-body

diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,"

the Court said. But the Court emphasized that the University of Michigan's policy was acceptable

because the school conducted a thorough review of each applicant's qualifications and did not

use a racial quota system, meaning it did not set aside a specific number of offers for minority

applicants.

Impact Affirmative action, which has its origins in a 1961 executive order issued by President John F.

Kennedy, continues to be a contentious issue, with critics charging that it amounts to reverse

discrimination. Since 1996, voters in three states; California, Washington, and, most recently,

Michigan have approved laws banning affirmative action in public education, in state

government hiring, and the awarding of state contracts. (At Upfrontmagazine.com: a look at the

Court's decision in June limiting the use of race in public school integration plans.)

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915monday.html

June 23, 2003 -- In its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education admissions in 25

years, the nation's highest court ruled Monday that race can be used in university admission

decisions. But the narrowly divided court also seemed to put limits on how much of a factor race

can play in giving minority students an advantage in the admissions process.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices decided on two separate but parallel cases -- they voted 5-4 to

uphold the University of Michigan's law school affirmative action policy, which favors

minorities. But in a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down the affirmative action policy for

undergraduate admissions, which awards 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans

on an admissions rating scale.

The cases tested whether the university is allowed to discriminate because it values diversity in

its student body, or whether discrimination is only justified to reverse past racial injustice.

The pivotal case, Grutter v. Bollinger, involved the university's law school. Barbara Grutter, who

is white, applied for admission there in 1996. She was rejected. She investigated and found out

that African Americans and ethnic minorities who had lower overall admissions scores were

admitted. Grutter sued, saying she was a victim of illegal discrimination.

Grutter's lawyers argued that the admissions program at the university's law school was

unconstitutional. They based the argument on a 1978 case, Regents of the University of

California v. Bakke, where the court ruled that a school could take race and ethnicity into

account -- but couldn't use quotas. Instead, admissions programs must be "narrowly tailored" to

harm as few people as possible.

Grutter and her supporters won the first round in U.S. District Court, but lost in a close decision

in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and

Tennessee. The majority of appellate court justices sided with the university view that a diverse

student body has its own benefits, and that a "points" system for admission that takes the race of

the applicant into account in an overall score wasn't a quota. Grutter appealed that ruling to the

Supreme Court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in Grutter, saying that affirmative

action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25

years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest

approved today."

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/

GROUP TWO- CASE TWO: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs for a

planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance.

In February 2003, six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the

District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control

Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code). This law restricted

residents from owning handguns.

It challenged the law in federal enclaves like the District of Columbia and did not apply to the

states.

The Court ruled 5 to 4 a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law on Second

Amendment grounds for the first time in U.S. history.

Case Background

The Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, a local DC law, bans the possession of handguns

within the District of Columbia. Six residents challenged it in 2003; their case was initially

dismissed, but was upheld 2-1 by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007. The U.S. Supreme

Court agreed to hear the case, and issued a ruling on June 26th, 2008.

The Majority Opinion

In an exhaustive 5-4 majority opinion that examines the history of gun laws, and textual evidence

from the British colonial era supporting a right to bear arms, Justice Antonin Scalia held that

"[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with

service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes." Firearms may be only

banned if they are "unusual and dangerous"--a standard that the handgun, the most common

firearm in the United States, does not meet.

The majority opinion was joined by justices Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas, and by chief justice

Roberts.

Impact on Existing Gun Control Legislation

In the opinion, Scalia is careful to point out that the ruling should not be read as striking down

most gun control laws. "[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding

prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws prohibiting the

carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws

imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." All laws completely

prohibiting the possession of handguns are, however, struck down by this opinion.

Justice Stevens' Dissent

In a dissent that is almost as comprehensive and exhaustive as that of Justice Scalia, Justice

Stevens (joined by justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter) argues that the majority's broad

interpretation of the Second Amendment is inconsistent with the Framers' original intent. "The

Court would have us believe," Stevens writes, "that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a

choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of

weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial

lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy ... [and] I could not possibly

conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Justice Breyer's Dissent

In a separate dissent, joined by justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, Justice Stephen Breyer

argues that preventing urban gun violence is a compelling state interest met by the handgun ban.

"In my view," Breyer writes, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by

the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The Second Amendment

The Supreme Court has weighed in on most civil liberties issues, but has been conspicuously shy

about enforcing the Second Amendment. This is partly because there is considerable

disagreement among legal scholars about what the amendment actually says (see "Does the

Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms?"), a disagreement that is not helped by the

fact that it is poorly written and refers to an institution (the "well-regulated militia") that may or

may not technically still exist.

Robert Longley of About.com: U.S. Government Info has produced a useful short timeline of

Second Amendment history.

The Gun Control Debate

In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, About.com: U.S. Liberal Politics guide Deborah White

and I had a brief exchange about the role of gun rights in our democracy. You can read it here:

Does America Value Gun Rights More Than Students? (Deborah White / About.com: U.S. Liberal Politics)

Our Freedoms, Our Lives (Tom Head / About.com: Civil Liberties)

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/tp/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller.htm

GROUP THREE- CASE THREE: Near v. Minnesota 1931

Appellant: J.M. Near

Appellee: State of Minnesota, ex rel. Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney of Hennepin County

Appellant's Claim: That a state "gag law" preventing publication of his newspaper violated the

First Amendment freedom of the press.

Chief Lawyers for Appellant: Weymouth Kirkland and T.E. Latimer

Chief Lawyers for Appellee: James E. Markham and Arthur L. Markve

Justices for the Court: Louis D. Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes

(writing for the Court), Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone

Justices Dissenting: Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, Willis Van

Devanter

Date of Decision: June 1, 1931

Decision: The law violated the freedom of the press.

Significance: This was the first time the Supreme Court declared that "prior restraints" on

publication violated the First Amendment.

True or false?

In 1925, Minnesota passed a law called the Minnesota Gag Law. The law allowed judges to stop

the publication of any newspaper that created a scandal or defamed (lied about) a person. The

law was designed to fight "yellow journalism," which was a trend in the newspaper industry in

the 1920s to print exaggerated or false stories.

J.M. Near published a newspaper in Minneapolis, Minnesota, called The Saturday Press. Near's

prejudice against Catholics, Jews, and African Americans showed through in The Saturday

Press. The newspaper, however, also printed articles about corruption in city politics, and many

of them were true.

From September through November 1927, The Saturday Press published a series of articles that

said Minneapolis was being controlled by a Jewish gangster. The articles accused the city mayor,

county attorney, and chief of police of accepting bribes and refusing to stop the gangster. On

behalf of the state of Minnesota, the county attorney sued Near and The Saturday Press. He

charged them with violating the Gag Law by publishing scandalous and defamatory (untrue)

material that lied about public officials.

Near tried to get the lawsuit thrown out of court. He argued that the Gag Law violated the First

Amendment freedom of the press, which says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the

freedom . . . of the press." Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states

also must obey the freedom of the press.

The trial judge rejected Near's defense and decided that The Saturday Press was scandalous and

defamatory. He issued an order preventing Near from publishing the newspaper in the future.

Near appealed the order all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

No prior restraints

In a close decision, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to declare the Minnesota Gag Law

unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes started by

confirming what the Court had decided six years earlier. The First Amendment freedom of the

press is one of the liberties, or freedoms, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from state

interference. This means that all states, including Minnesota, must obey the freedom of the press.

Chief Justice Hughes went on to explain the meaning of the freedom of the press. He told the

story of how publishers in England used to need approval from government or church officials

before publishing books. Justice Hughes said that the First Amendment was designed to avoid

such "prior restraints" on publication. America's founders did not want the government to have

the power to stop a publisher from printing what the government did not like. In fact, America's

founders thought it was important for the public to be informed about the government's bad

deeds so the public could be aware of and fight any government corruption.

Justice Hughes decided that the Minnesota Gag Law violated the First Amendment. Preventing

Near from printing The Saturday Press in the future was a prior restraint on publication. Justice

Hughes said that if the newspaper lied about public officials, those officials could sue for libel.

(Libel is the publication of false information that hurts a person's reputation.) The public,

however, had a right to hear about government misconduct, and the First Amendment allowed

The Saturday Press to print such stories.

Decency denied

For himself and three others, Justice Pierce Butler wrote a dissenting opinion, meaning he

disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice Butler thought the freedom of the press only protects

the right to print "what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends." He did not think it

gave publishers the right to print material that ruins another person's reputation.

In fact, Justice Butler said that the Minnesota Gag Law was not a "prior restraint." The law

punished Near and The Saturday Press only after they printed defamatory (untrue) material. It

told them they could not print such material again. Justice Butler said the Court's decision

threatened peace by allowing publishers to print lies about anyone.

Near's Legacy

Near has had the effect that Justice Hughes predicted and that Justice Butler feared. On the good

side, it has allowed the press to be a government watchdog. For example, in 1971, the Supreme

Court used Near to rule that the federal government could not stop newspapers from printing an

embarrassing report about the government's involvement in the Vietnam War.

Like Justice Butler feared, however, some "tabloid" publishers today abuse the freedom of the

press by printing crazy stories about people with animal bodies and babies that weigh 1,000

pounds. When these tabloids print lies about actual people, like politicians or celebrities, the

injured person must file a libel lawsuit to protect his reputation.

FOUR HORSEMEN

The dissenters in Near, Justices Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and

Willis Van Devanter, often voted together. By convincing just one more justice to vote with

them, they were able to control the result in many of Supreme Court cases. Because of this

power, they were called the Four Horsemen. This name was a comparison to Notre Dame's

undefeated football offense in 1924, and to the horsemen described in the Bible's prediction of

the end of the world.

In the 1930s, the Four Horsemen frequently voted against laws passed by Congress to help

America get out of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was a time when many

Americans lost their jobs and had trouble providing food for their families. Despite the severity

of the Great Depression, the Four Horsemen saw a greater danger from passing laws that violated

the U.S. Constitution. In Near, however, they were unable to stop the Court from strengthening

the freedom of the press.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/near-v-minnesota

GROUP FOUR -CASE FOUR: California v. Ciraolo (1986)

and Florida v. Riley

Petitioner: State of California

Respondent: Dante Carlo Ciraolo

Petitioner's Claim: That the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by searching

Ciraolo's backyard from an airplane without a warrant.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner: Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General of California

Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Marshall Warren Krause

Justices for the Court: Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, John

Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F.

Powell, Jr.

Date of Decision: May 19, 1986

Decision: The Supreme Court said the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Significance: With Ciraolo, the Supreme Court said people in enclosed yards cannot expect

privacy from air traffic above.

A person's right to privacy is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment requires any searches and seizures by the government to be reasonable.

In most cases, law enforcement officers must get a warrant to search a house or other private

place for evidence of a crime. To get a warrant, officers must have probable cause, or believe the

place to be searched has evidence of a crime.

In Oliver v. United States (1984), the Supreme Court said people can expect privacy not just

inside their houses, but in the curtilage too. The curtilage is the yard that a person encloses or

considers to be private. Because the curtilage is private, law enforcement officers usually must

have a warrant and probable cause to search it. In California v. Ciraolo, the U.S. Supreme Court

had to decide whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a backyard from

an airplane without a warrant.

Flying Low

Dante Carlo Ciraolo lived in Santa Clara, California. On September 2, 1982, Santa Clara police

received an anonymous tip that Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his backyard. The police could

not see the backyard from the ground because Ciraolo enclosed it with a six-foot outer fence and

a ten-foot inner fence. Later that day, Officer Shutz hired a private plane to fly him and Officer

Rodriguez over Ciraolo's backyard at an altitude of 1,000 feet.

Shutz and Rodriguez both were trained in marijuana identification. From the airplane they saw

marijuana plants growing eight- to ten-feet high in a fifteen-by-twenty-five-foot plot. The

officers photographed Ciraolo's backyard and those of surrounding neighbors. Six days later they

used the photographs and their observations to get a warrant to search Ciraolo's entire house and

yard. During the search they seized seventy-three marijuana plants.

Florida charged Ciraolo with cultivating, or growing, marijuana. At his trial, Ciraolo asked the

court to suppress, or get rid of, the marijuana evidence against him. When the government

violates the Fourth Amendment, it may not use the evidence it finds to convict the defendant.

Ciraolo said Officers Shutz and Rodriguez violated the Fourth Amendment by searching his

backyard from an airplane without a warrant.

The trial court denied Ciraolo's motion, so he pleaded guilty to the charge against him and

appealed to the California Court of Appeals. That court reversed his conviction, saying the police

violated the Fourth Amendment. Faced with having to dismiss its case against Ciraolo,

California took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

High Court Rules

With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of California. Writing for the

Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said the Fourth Amendment only protects reasonable

expectations of privacy. By putting a fence around his yard, Ciraolo had a reasonable expectation

that nobody would invade his privacy from the ground.

FLORIDA V. RILEY

Three years after deciding Ciraolo, the Supreme Court decided another case involving aerial

surveillance. In Florida v. Riley, police used a helicopter to hover 400 feet over a greenhouse

that had two panels missing from its roof. From the helicopter they were able to see and

photograph marijuana plants through the open panels. At his trial for possession of marijuana,

Michael A. Riley asked the court to suppress the marijuana evidence because the police violated

the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court ruled in Riley's favor, but the Supreme Court reversed. Relying on its decision in

Ciraolo, the Court said Riley could not expect privacy from helicopters hovering above his

greenhouse. In a dissenting opinion, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., warned that the Court was

creating a dictatorial society such as George Orwell described in his novel 1984:

The black-mustachio'd face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the

house front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. . . .

In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a

bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the Police Patrol, swooping into

people's windows.

Ciraolo did not, however, cover his yard from the airspace above. It was unreasonable for

Ciraolo to think that nobody would see his yard from airplanes and other flying machines. After

all, public airplanes were allowed to fly over Ciraolo's yard at the same height flown by Officers

Shutz and Rodriguez. Quoting from a prior Supreme Court case, Burger said, "What a person

knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth

Amendment protection."

Because Ciraolo could not expect privacy from above his backyard, the police did not need a

warrant to search from the airplane. "The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police

traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant to observe what is visible to the

naked eye."

Low Down Dirty Shame

Four justices dissented, which means they disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice Lewis F.

Powell, Jr., wrote a dissenting opinion. He said Ciraolo did all he needed to do to protect privacy

in his backyard by erecting fences. The Court's decision called Ciraolo's privacy expectation

reasonable on the ground but unreasonable from the air. That meant police could not use a ladder

to see into Ciraolo's yard, but they could use an airplane.

Powell said that in reality, public and commercial airplane passengers cannot see backyards very

well from the air. That means people do not expect invasions of privacy from airplanes. The

police were able to see Ciraolo's backyard only because they hired a plane that positioned them

to see the marijuana plot. Letting them do that without a search warrant was unfaithful to

privacy, which is what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/california-v-ciraolo

GROUP FIVE - CASE FIVE: Bush v. Gore (2000)

Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the

resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue

had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest

political contest of all. Legions of Court watchers, law professors, media commentators, and

armchair legal analysts across the country thought the Court's willingness to step into the fray

was a major misstep. Still, somebody had to decide who's in charge!

Background info

Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people went to bed that

night thinking that Al Gore had won, only to discover in the morning that George W. Bush had

been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. Several states were up

for grabs, but in the end it came down to one: Florida, where Bush's younger brother, Jeb, was

governor. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore owing to the

closeness of the vote. Brush fires erupted in several precincts where the candidates' surrogates

traded allegations about various improprieties. Recounts were started, then stopped as

Republicans and Democrats wrangled over what standards to apply. It was more than a little

chaotic.

The Court steps in

The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last

two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County

Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida

Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state

law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the

certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the

Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not

create a conflict between state and federal law.

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier

decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S.

Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted

certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a

recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida

Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The

five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving

the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore

telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In

its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida

recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the

Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of

2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

Needless to say, the George W. Bush camp was jubilant. Al Gore supporters were incensed.

Many people were simply happy to have things settled. But others worried that the Court had

gone too far. In the past, in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put

an end to legal segregation, and United States v. Nixon (1974), which led to the first presidential

resignation under threat of impeachment, were unanimously decided. After Bush v. Gore, the

concern was that the Court had not only overreached itself but undermined its authority by not

speaking with one voice. That split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was a political, not

a judicial, decision.

Precedents

Bush v. Gore wasn't the Court's first foray into the realm of king making. The election of 1876

pitted Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, against Rutherford B. Hayes, the

Republican governor of Ohio. After the votes had been counted, it seemed that Tilden had won

the popular vote and had 184 uncontested electoral votes to Hayes's 165. The magic number was

185 electoral votes. Twenty votes of the Electoral College were still up for grabs, however - all

but one of them in the southern states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. (The exception

was Oregon. They always have marched to a different drummer.)

The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that in a contested presidential election, "The President of

the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the

certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Because in 1876 Congress was equally divided

between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-

controlled House set up an electoral commission to decide who would become president. The

Senate chose three Republicans and two Democrats to sit on the commission, and the House

chose two Democrats and three Republicans. The remainder of the commission was to consist of

five justices of the Supreme Court. The bill setting up the commission named two Republican

justices and two Democratic justices, but let those four select their own nonpartisan tiebreaker.

The only truly neutral member of the Court at the time was David Davis. But Davis resigned

from the Court almost immediately, leaving only Republican justices as alternatives. Joseph

Bradley, seemingly the least partisan of those remaining, was selected as the final member of the

commission. To no one's great surprise, the commission voted along party lines, selecting the

Republican Hayes. Democrats, who were mostly Southerners, cried foul, claiming that Davis,

and perhaps Bradley, had been subjected to political blackmail. When the uproar threatened to

derail the orderly transfer of power, a deal was struck. The Republicans agreed to withdraw the

federal troops still occupying the South in the wake of the Civil War, to appropriate funds for

Southern improvement, and to appoint at least one Southerner to the cabinet. In return, the

Democrats agreed not to delay Hayes's inauguration. It was a flat-out political deal, and ever

since its implementation, the Court has been criticized for having played a part in what many

saw as outright log rolling.

And the winner is . . .

Why, then, did the Supreme Court agree to get back into the fray after the election of 2000? In a

sense, the justices had no choice. When the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore

proved too close to call, the contestants resorted to a series of lawsuits in an effort to settle the

matter. These suits proceeded simultaneously in the state court system and in federal court. The

cases largely concerned the matter and manner of vote counting (and recounting) in the pivotal

state of Florida. There were charges of voter intimidation, ballot rigging - all manner of political

shenanigans. Something had to be done.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/supreme-court-case-study-bush-v-gore.html

How a Case Gets to the United States Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is often referred to as the "Court of Last Resort,"

because it is the highest court in the United States; there is no court with higher authority. Also,

except for specific limited case types specifically listed in Article III of the Constitution, all cases

that reach the Supreme Court have been heard and are on appeal from the decisions of lower

courts across the nation.

Once a case works its way through the lower courts, a party may petition to have their case heard

by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has great latitude in

which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases, which

are called petitions for certiorari. Of these many requests, the Justices will agree to hear only a

handful, generally less than 100, cases per term. The Supreme Court's term begins the first

Monday of October and ends the first Monday of October the following year. In 2010, the

Supreme Court term begins on October 4th

. In order for a case to be heard before the Supreme

Court, four of the nine Justices of the court must agree to hear the case.

If certiorari is granted, the time frame for the parties involved in the case is set. The petitioner

(the party that has requested the Court review the case), has 45 days to file their "brief on the

merits", which lays out their arguments to the court. The respondents (the other party) then has

30 days to respond. Amicus (friend of the court) brief filing deadlines are a few days after the

deadline for the side that they support. These times are set by the rules of the Court, and may

only be extended with the permission of the Court.

The next step for the case will be oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The case will be

placed on the Court's calendar for some time in the Fall or the Spring. And when the day comes,

one attorney for each side will stand before the Justices for their oral argument and will present

their case to the Justices. The attorneys will have only a set time (generally 30 minutes apiece) to

plead their case before the Court. However, any Justice may interrupt at any point to ask

questions or debate a point with the attorney; so the attorney must think quickly on their feet, and

know the law and their case inside and out. So even though an attorney has 30 minutes to plead

their side of the case, Justices' questions and attorneys' answers can go on for much longer.

After oral arguments, the Court will deliberate on the matter, and will release a written opinion at

some point before the term in which the case was argued ends. Opinions are generally released

on Thursdays, but it is not known when the opinion for a specific case will be released. Once the

opinion is released, it will represent the law of the land, and creates precedence that will shape

future laws and court decisions that are binding throughout the United States of America.

http://www.theeca.com/how_a_case_gets_to_the_united_states_supreme_court