+1 914 979 2828
+1 914 979 2828

Case Brief on landmark supreme court

A landmark case is one that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most
significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often
concerning individual rights and liberties.
For this assignment, you will write a case brief of one landmark case. A case brief is not a long
narrative, but rather a concise document that includes specific information.
Instructions: Look up one landmark case. State the name of the case, the year it was decided, and the
court that decided it. In your own words, briefly summarize 1) the facts of the original case, 2) the
legal questions that brought the case to the higher court, 3) the outcome, and 4) what makes it a
landmark case.
Use the following headings in your brief:
• Facts of Original Case
• Legal Questions
• Outcome (decision)
• What makes it a Landmark Case
Your assignment must be typed and double-spaced.
Please see the example below and use it as a guide for format and content of your case brief.
Maryland v King, 2013, United States Supreme Court
Facts of Original Case: Alonzo King was arrested and charged with assault. Per Maryland state law, a
buccal swab of King’s cheek was taken on arrest, and a DNA profile was generated and entered into
CODIS. A subsequent search in CODIS hit on an unidentified DNA sample from a rape case six years
prior. King was charged with the rape and found guilty.
Legal Questions: On appeal, King’s attorney asserted that the search and seizure of King’s DNA
violated his 4th Amendment right, and that the police had no probable cause to suspect him of having
committed any crime other than the assault he was originally charged with. He won the appeal. The
state of Maryland then appealed to the US Supreme Court (USSC), who accepted this case because it
dealt with several important legal and Constitutional questions: Does the 4th Amendment extend to
genetic privacy? Is the warrantless collection of DNA just part of the booking process, like
fingerprints? Or is it unreasonable under the 4th Amendment because it leads to, essentially, a
suspicion-less search?
Outcome/Decision: The USSC overturned King’s appeal (5-4) and upheld the original verdict of guilty,
ruling that the seizure and search of DNA in not unconstitutional, and is much like the seizing and
searching of fingerprints.
What makes this a landmark case: The decision in this case validates law enforcement’s authority to
seize (and search) DNA from arrestees, which greatly increases their power. The decision places higher
value on public safety than individual rights, and erodes the protections of the 4th Amendment.


Sample Solution

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)

Holding: Students don’t have a First Amendment right to deliver vulgar addresses in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, an understudy at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for conveying an indecent and provocative discourse to the understudy body. In this discourse, he assigned his kindred schoolmate for a chosen school office. The Supreme Court held that his free discourse privileges were not disregarded.

Leading body of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Dukes (2002)

Holding: Random medication trial of understudies associated with extracurricular exercises don’t abuse the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that irregular medication trial of understudy competitors don’t abuse the Fourth Amendment’s preclusion of outlandish ventures and seizures. A few schools then, at that point, started to require drug trial of all understudies in extracurricular exercises. The Supreme Court in Earls maintained this training.

Earthy colored v. Leading group of Education (1954)

Holding: Separate schools are not equivalent.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court authorized isolation by maintaining the principle of “separate yet equivalent.” The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People couldn’t help contradicting this decision, testing the defendability of isolation in the Topeka, Kansas, educational system. In 1954, the Court turned around its Plessy choice, announcing that “isolated schools are intrinsically inconsistent.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Holding: States can’t invalidate choices of the government courts.

A few government authorities in southern states, including the lead representative and council of Alabama, wouldn’t follow the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Leading body of Education choice. They contended that the states could invalidate government court choices in case they felt that the bureaucratic courts were disregarding the Constitution. The Court consistently dismissed this contention and held that main the government courts can choose when the Constitution is abused.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Holding: School started petition in the state funded educational system disregards the First Amendment.

In the New York educational system, every day started with a nondenominational petition recognizing reliance upon God. This activity was tested in Court as an unlawful state foundation of religion disregarding the First Amendment. The Supreme Court concurred, expressing that the public authority couldn’t support such strict exercises.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Holding: Indigent respondents should be given portrayal without charge.

Gideon was blamed for submitting a lawful offense. Being penniless, he requested of the appointed authority to give him a lawyer for nothing. The adjudicator denied his solicitation. The Supreme Court controlled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires poor criminal respondents to be given a lawyer for nothing.

Goss v. Lopez (1975)

Holding: Students are qualified for sure fair treatment privileges.

Nine understudies at an Ohio state funded school got 10-day suspensions for troublesome conduct without fair treatment insurances. The Supreme Court governed for the understudies, saying that once the state gives instruction to its residents as a whole, it can’t deny them of it without guaranteeing fair treatment assurances.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Holding: Colleges and colleges have a genuine interest in advancing variety.

Barbara Grutter asserted that her Equal Protection freedoms were abused when the University of Michigan Law School’s endeavor to acquire an assorted understudy body brought about the disavowal of her affirmation’s application. The Supreme Court differ and held that organizations of advanced education have a genuine interest in advancing variety.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Holding: Administrators might alter the substance of school papers.

The head of Hazelwood East High School altered two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he considered improper. The understudy creators contended that this disregarded their First Amendment right to the right to speak freely of discourse. The Supreme Court dissented, expressing that executives can alter materials that reflect school esteems.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Holding: Illegally acquired material can’t be utilized in a criminal preliminary.

While looking through Dollree Mapp’s home, cops found revolting materials and captured her. Since the cops never created a court order, she contended that the materials ought to be smothered as the products of an illicit inquiry and seizure. The Supreme Court concurred and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. Joined States(1914).

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Holding: Established the teaching of legal audit.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the power to give specific legal writs. The Constitution didn’t give the Court this power. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any problematic legislative Act is without power. The capacity of government courts to pronounce administrative and chief activities illegal is known as legal audit.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Holding: The Constitution gives the central government certain inferred powers.

Maryland forced an assessment on the Bank of the United States and scrutinized the national government’s capacity to concede contracts without unequivocal established assent. The Supreme Court held that the assessment illegally meddled with administrative incomparability and decided that the Constitution gives the central government certain inferred powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Holding: Police should educate suspects regarding their privileges prior to addressing.

Night-time of police cross examinations, Ernesto Miranda admitted to assault and hijacking. At preliminary, he looked to stifle his admission, expressing that he was not educated with respect to his privileges to direct and to stay quiet. The Supreme Court concurred, holding that police should educate suspects regarding their freedoms prior to addressing.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Holding: Students have a decreased assumption for security in school.

An instructor blamed T.L.O. of smoking in the restroom. At the point when she denied the claim, the chief looked through her handbag and tracked down cigarettes and maryjane gear. A family court proclaimed T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court decided that her freedoms were not abused since understudies have diminished assumptions for protection in school.

Get more familiar with this case.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Holding: In request to demonstrate defamation, a public authority should show that information disclosed against them was made with genuine perniciousness.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police magistrate, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an ad containing some bogus assertions. The Supreme Court collectively decided for the paper saying the option to distribute all assertions is secured under the First Amendment.

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Holding: It is savage and uncommon discipline to execute people for violations they submitted before age 18.

Matthew Simmons was condemned to death for the homicide of a lady when he was 17 years old. In the 1988 case Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court decided that executing people for wrongdoings carried out at age 15 or more youthful comprises pitiless and surprising discipline disregarding the Eighth Amendment. Roper contended that “advancing guidelines of fairness” forestalled the execution of a person for wrongdoings carried out before the age of 18. A larger part of the Supreme Court concurred with Roper, and held that to execute him for his wrongdoing would disregard the Eighth Amendment.

St Nick Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Holding: Students may not utilize a school’s amplifier framework to offer understudy drove, understudy started petition.

Before football match-ups, individuals from the understudy body of a Texas secondary school chose one of their colleagues for address the players and observers. These locations were led over the school’s amplifiers and generally elaborate a petition. Participation at these occasions was intentional. Three understudies sued the school contending that the petitions abused the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A greater part of the Court dismissed the school’s contention that since the petition was understudy started and understudy drove, rather than authoritatively supported by the school, it didn’t abuse the First Amendment. The Court held that this activity comprised school-supported supplication on the grounds that the amplifiers that the understudies utilized for their summons were claimed by the school.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Holding: Stop and searches don’t disregard the Constitution under particular conditions.

Noticing Terry and others acting dubiously before a store, a cop reasoned that they may ransack it. The official halted and searched the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was indicted for conveying a covered weapon. The Supreme Court decided that this inquiry was sensible.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Holding: Even hostile discourse, for example, banner copying is secured by the First Amendment.

To fight the arrangements of the Reagan organization, Gregory Lee Johnson consumed an American banner outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was captured for this demonstration, however contended that it was representative discourse. The Supreme Court concurred, deciding that emblematic discourse is intrinsically ensured in any event, when it is hostile.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Holding: Students don’t leave their freedoms at the school building entryway.

To fight the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her sibling wore dark armbands to school. Dreading an interruption, the organization restricted wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were taken out from school when they neglected to consent, yet the Supreme Court decided that their activities were ensured by the First Amendment.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Holding: The President isn’t exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else