Supreme Court Cases
Mr. Gionet
Government
For each of the cases below, lawyers and judges will be responsible for the following:
All papers handed in (brief, narrative outline, decision, etc.) are to be typed.
LAWYERS
A 2-3 page brief stating the argument to be used in the case as well as at least one precedent Federal
case. In this brief you must also state the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment that you are
basing your case. This will also help you in researching your case and the precedents. Grade will be
based upon clarity and logical thought, relevance or precedent to your case as well as grammar,
punctuation and spelling. This will be your Quality Work Assignment for the semester.
A narrative outline of the oral arguments to be presented in the case that includes a summary of all
precedent cases (listed on a separate page) to be used in oral arguments. The specific Article, Section
and Clause, or Amendment, of the Constitution to be argued and any precedent cases to be used must
be included in your outline. Grades will be based upon organization of thought, clarity of presentation
and ability to present viewpoint.
Each team of lawyers will be allotted 15 minutes before the court in which to make oral arguments.
Grade will be based upon clarity of presentation, logical thought, knowledge of case and precedents,
adherence to the dress code and ability to answer questions.
For the case you argue, you and a partner will be representing either the Petitioner (the party bringing
the case) or the Respondent (the party defending the case). Below are some guidelines for each side.
Supreme Court Hearing Job Responsibilities
PETITIONER
You will represent the side that brought the case before the Supreme Court.
In this activity you will be preparing and presenting an argument before the court.
Your job is to:
Discuss the case and develop arguments to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court
decision. Be prepared to answer any questions the justices may ask you.
In preparing your arguments, you should think about and be ready to address the following
questions:
What decision do you want?
What are the arguments in favor of and against each side? (Anticipating the opposition can strengthen
your argument.)
Which arguments are the most persuasive? Why?
What are the precedents and how do they influence this case?
What might be the consequences of each possible decision?
To the parties? To society? (Hypothetical questions)
Are there any alternatives besides what each side is demanding?
You may save up to three minutes for a rebuttal.
Supreme Court Cases
Mr. Gionet
Government
RESPONDENT
You will represent the side that is defending the case brought before the Supreme Court.
In this activity you will be preparing and presenting an argument before the court.
Your job is to:
Discuss the case and develop arguments to persuade the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court
decision. Be prepared to answer any questions the justices may ask you.
In preparing your arguments, you should think about and be ready to address the following
questions:
What decision do you want?
What are the arguments in favor of and against each side? (Anticipating the opposition can strengthen
your argument.)
Which arguments are the most persuasive? Why?
What are the precedents and how do they influence this case?
What might be the consequences of each possible decision?
To the parties? To society? (Hypothetical questions)
Are there any alternatives besides what each side is demanding?
You are not allotted any time for rebuttal so make sure that you address all the information in your
case in the time allotted.
Supreme Court Hearing Job Responsibilities
JUSTICES
Each judge will be required to hand in five potential questions for each case being argued. These
include questions that may be asked during the oral arguments.
Judges will be required to fully participate in each case that is presented. This means that you will ask
questions, challenge statements and be fully aware of the generalities of the case and how each is a
Constitutional challenge. Judges must also adhere to the dress code of the Court each day cases are
presented.
At the conclusion of deliberations, a decision will be written for each case. Judges will determine the
specific decisions they will write. Instructions will be given on the form for the decision. This will be
your Quality Work Assignment for the semester.
Each grade received for this assignment will be counted as a presentation score (20% of your overall
grade).
Supreme Court Cases
Mr. Gionet
Government
JUSTICES
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and the court of last resort. A
decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. The Court, composed of a panel of justices, is
asked to rule on a lower court's decision. There is no trial; no witnesses are called and the basic facts
in a case are not disputed. The arguments to be presented can be based on the Constitution, the
applicable law and previous court precedents. The arguments do not need to be rooted in legal
technicalities. In this activity you will be making a decision in the case.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Your job is to:
1. Review the case and think of questions (minimum of five for each case) to ask the attorneys.
3. Listen carefully and take notes for the arguments and ask questions whenever you like.
4. Be sure to consider the impact of your decision on other situations that may arise in the future. It is
acceptable to ask hypothetical questions to assess future ramifications of a possible decision.
5. Discuss the case with the other justices and decide whether you think the decision of the lower court
should be upheld or overturned. You do not have to agree. The decision will be based on the majority
vote. There can be dissenting opinions.
6. Prepare a written decision that addresses the reason for the decision reached. Each decision must
include at least two precedent cases to support the reason for your decision.
7. Announce your decision and your reasons.
Your case:______________________________ v. _____________________________
You and your partner are the (circle one): Petitioner Respondent
Notes:
Supreme Court Cases
Mr. Gionet
Government
2009 Fall Docket
Supreme Court of the United States
Chief Justice Gionet presiding
1. In the spring of 1997, the New Mexico State Police pull over a vehicle for going 67 MPH in a 45
MPH zone. Upon the questioning of the male driver, the officer notices a syringe in the driver’s
pocket. The officer ordered the three occupants out of the car and proceeded to search the car. Upon a
search of the driver, no drugs are found. The officer then notices a back pack being carried by the
woman that was seated in the front seat with the driver. He orders the woman to hand over the back
pack and proceeds to search the bag. A search of the pack ensues and among the items found includes
a syringe, approximately 60cc’s of liquid methamphetamine, 1.5 grams of cocaine and assorted drug
paraphernalia. The woman is promptly arrested. At her trial the woman, Claudette Jones, asserts that
her Constitutional rights were violated in that she was subjected to an illegal search that is forbidden
under the Fourth Amendment. She claims that since the automobile was not hers and that probable
cause was not prompted by her, she had an expected right of privacy as an occupant of the car. After a
lower court finds for New Mexico, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals finds for Claudette
Jones. New Mexico appeals to the United States Supreme Court where it is known as Jones (R) v.
New Mexico (P).
2. In a response to the deteriorating dress of the student body, the Boston Unified School District
(BUSD) bans clothing made by Abercrombie and Fitch. The District cites the provocative nature of
not only the clothing, but of the advertising as well. School officials claim that the preoccupation with
Abercrombie and Fitch clothing by numerous students and the resulting attitudes and behaviors at
school are not conducive to the educational process. Numerous incidents have been documented that
have cited clothing as the root cause of disturbances within the schools. Abercrombie and Fitch claim
that the consumers of their clothing have had their First Amendment rights violated by the District.
The case is appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeals where the Court sides with BUSD.
Abercrombie appeals to the Supreme Court eventually where he case is known as Abercrombie and
Fitch (P) v. Boston Unified School District (R).
3. Mark Thomas, a student at Coral Gables High School in Coral Gables, Florida, was being
interrogated by a vice principal concerning an infraction in a classroom. Thomas was not an unknown
to the school administration. It had been rumored for some time that Thomas was involved in the drug
scene at Coral Gables HS. Upon entering the vice principals office, Thomas was asked to empty his
pockets on the desk, per school district policy. One of the items that was placed by Thomas on the
desk was his cell phone. As Thomas was being questioned by the vice principal, Thomas’s phone
rings in the vibrate mode in such a manner that the vice principal could read the screen of the cell
phone. The vice principal notices that the call is from a student who had been expelled on a drug
possession violation the previous week. The vice principal opens the phone and reads a text message
that indicated Thomas possessed illegal drugs and was to sell said drugs to the caller after school. The
vice principal contacted the Coral Gables police who search both Thomas’s locker and car where they
discover a substantial amount of marijuana. Thomas is promptly arrested. At trial, Thomas’s lawyer
asserts that the search of the car was illegal based upon the vice principal not having the authority to
view the text message that started the search. The American Civil Liberties Union takes up Thomas’s
cause and files suit against the school district. The ACLU loses in both the 7th District Court as well
as the 11th District Appellate Court. Not satisfied with the decision, the ACLU appeals to the United
States Supreme Court. The case is known as the ACLU (P) v. Coral Gables School District (R).
4. Rick Meier, a self avowed pacifist, has been a very vocal critic of the United States military actions
in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Upon hearing that Army reservists from his home state of Iowa may
soon be called to serve overseas, Meier starts a mail campaign in where he sends a letter to the
Reservists urging them to not report to duty when called. He has even visited a few of the Reservists
at their homes in Des Moines, his home town. The mailings contain language that includes the
following phrases: “Don’t help legitimize an unjust war.”, “Civilly disobey the governmental war
mongers.” and “Save a life, don’t report.” Word of his mailings and visits draw the attention of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and he is promptly arrested for violating the Espionage Act.
Meier claims that he was only asserting his First Amendment right of free speech. He files suit against
the United States and appeals to the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts and the 8th Court
of Appeals. The case is known as Meier (P) v. United States (R).
5. Tim Griffin is accused of killing another man in a dispute over drugs. Griffin steadfastly maintains
his innocence. Being only 17, the state of Texas nevertheless decides to try Griffin as an adult. Griffin
is ultimately found innocent of the crime and another man is charged for the murder and found guilty.
Shortly after his release from custody, Griffin drafts a petition to the State of Texas requesting that he
receive the rights of an adult as determined by the age of majority in Texas. He argues that he should
receive the rights of an 18 year old due to the fact that he was tried as an adult. Griffin is denied his
petition. Griffin sues the state saying that he has already been judged to be an adult and that the state
can not pick and choose what arenas he should be judged an adult. The case makes its way to the
Supreme Court after a lower court decision and the 5th District Court of Appeals finds for the state of
Texas. The case is known as Griffin (P) v. Texas (R).
6. Dave Miller was convicted of first-degree murder in 1996 and was sentenced to death. At the time
of his death, the state of Arkansas allowed the convicted death row inmates to choose either death by
hanging or the electric chair. After weeks of agonizing thought, which was acknowledged by the state
at the time, Miller chose death in the electric chair. As part of the normal course of the judicial system,
Miller also started an appeal process of his conviction. It is now 2007 and the appeal process has run
its course. Miller’s appeals have been denied and he is scheduled for execution on Nov. 30, 2007.
However, the state of Arkansas no longer uses the electric chair and Miller is asked to choose between
lethal injection or hanging. Miller is outraged that he once again has to contemplate his own death.
Although there is a provision in Arkansas law that allows the state to choose the method of execution if
the inmate refuses, Miller is nevertheless incensed that he is asked the question and brings suit against
the state of Arkansas in Federal Court. The 8th District Court of Appeals agrees with Miller and the
State of Arkansas appeals to the Supreme Court. The case is known as Miller (R) v. Arkansas (P).
7. After graduating from high school and realizing that he had little employable skills as well as a lack
of money for a four year college, Keith Bachtold informs his parents that he is just going to work for
awhile until he has enough money to attend Texas A&M. Outraged that he does not take their
suggestion to attend the local community college to get started with his degree, his parents let Keith
know that he will be charge room and board if he remains at home. Keith is angry with his parents at
the suggestion of having to pay to live at home and threatens to call the police to let them know of his
parents small marijuana grow operation in the basement. After compromising with his parents,
Bachtold agrees to a room and board charge of $300 a month. One weekend, while his parents are
gone, Bachtold holds a video game party for 10-12 of his friends. Although no illegal activities are
taking place, the party gets out of hand and the Lubbock, Texas Police Department (LPD) is notified.
Upon arriving at the scene, the LPD ask if they may enter the house to verify that no illegal activities
are taking place. Specifically, the police are looking for alcohol and illegal substances. Still angry
with his parents for their actions, Bachtold suggests that the officers look in the back room of the
basement. Upon searching this room, the police find Bachtold’s parents’ small marijuana grow
operation. On their return from their out of town trip, the Bachtold’s are arrested for the grow
operation. They claim that the evidence was seized illegally and file with the Federal District Court to
have the search declared illegal. The District court denies their request and the case is appealed by the
Bachtold’s to the 5th District Federal Appeals court. This court also denies the appeal and the
Bachtold’s make one last-ditch effort in their appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The case is
known as Bachtold v. Texas. The case makes it way to the Supreme Court after the 11th Court of
Appeals and a lower court sides with Bachtold. The case is known as where it is known as Bachtold
(R) v. Texas (P).
8. Bob Goodhope, an openly gay student at Abilene County High School (Texas), seeks permission to
bring a date to the Abilene Senior Prom. The prom is a traditional couple’s only affair. Upon
reviewing the request, the administration at the school refers his request to the local school board. The
Abilene School Board responds by passing an ordinance that states that only heterosexual couples may
attend the Senior Prom. They state in their reasoning that couples of the same sex may not attend the
prom because of potential problems that may result from the actions of other students. They
specifically state that harassment, and possible assaults, may be directed to a non-heterosexual couple.
Goodhope, with backing from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), files suit in Federal Court
claiming that his Constitutional rights have been violated. The case makes its way to the Supreme
Court after a lower court decision and the 5th District Court of Appeals finds for the school district. The
case is known as Goodhope (P) v. Abilene (Texas) County Schools (R).