Brief Fact Summary. White students brought suit against the University of Michigan for having racially bias admission policies.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission.

Facts. The University of Michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year to its College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA). To help with admission decisions, the University implements a point system. This point system is out of 100 points. A student that is from an underrepresented group automatically receives 20 points towards his or her over all score. The groups of students typically come from African-American, Hispanic, and Native American backgrounds. A student with extraordinary artistic talent only receives 5 points under the admission system. Also every student that is from an underrepresented group, and is otherwise qualified, is typically accepted into the school. A group of white student’s, that were determined qualified by the University, where denied admission.

Issue. Whether a School’s admission policy to automatically grant 20 out of 100 points to students of a minority ethnicity is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Brief Fact Summary. A governor argues that his State should not be bound to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and tried to legislate against it.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; Supreme Court Cases are binding upon all the States.

Facts. A state governor wishes to have the state legislature make it legal to segregate children in school based on his or her race. The Governor’s argument is one that the case is only binding until the state legislates otherwise, and that the case of Brown v. Board of Education should not be binding on the state.

Issue. Whether a state is bound by all Supreme Court Case decisions.

Brief Fact Summary.  

 Texas has a monument outside the capital building that has the Ten Commandments on it.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

Displays that have both religious and governmental significance will not be held to violate the Establishment Clause

Facts.   Outside of the Texas capital building is a site that contains 17 monuments. Each monument represents something in connection with Texas’s history. One of those statutes has the Ten Commandments in its entirety on it. This display is challenge.

Issue.  

Whether every public display holding religious context must pass the Lemon test in order to not violate the Establishment Clause.

Brief Fact Summary.  

Two counties placed the Ten Commandments citing King James Version on the walls of the court house.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

Placing religious documents on court house walls is a violation of the Establishment Clause and will not be allowed.

Facts.  The County of McCreary and the County of Pulaski had a display of a gold-framed copy of King James Version of the Ten Commandments placed on the wall of their respective court houses. The displays even had the religious citation of the Book of Exodus 20:3-17. This was placed so that all citizens could see the display. In the first case the ACLU sued in federal court for this display. A month later the legislative bodies of each county authorized a second display. This one stated the Ten Commandments are the precedent legal code upon which the civil and criminal codes of the counties of Kentucky are founded. The District court ordered the displays be removed. Then the counties tried another display, this one showing the Ten Commandments and 8 other historical relevant documents.

Issue.  

Whether placing the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public court house is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Brief Fact Summary.  

There is an ordinance requiring all trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a particular waste facility. The plaintiffs (trash haulers) brought suit stating this was unconstitutional.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

 Flow control ordinances that favor the government instead of a private facility are constitutional as long as they do not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Facts. This State’s legislature put into affect a flow control ordinance. It favored the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority’s site and requiring all haulers to bring sold waste to their facility only. When this occurs the cost is shifted to the haulers to go to that site, whether convenient or not. This group is a state-created public benefit corporation. 

Issue.  

  Whether a flow ordinance favoring a government entity is constitutional, when the Supreme Court has previously ruled flow ordinances are not constitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Brief Fact Summary.  

Two different schools have assignment plans that are discriminatory against students based on their race.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

School plans that use race alone as a qualifying criterion for school assignments is unconstitutional.

Facts. The Seattle School district and Jefferson County district have applications that require a parent to state what the race of his or her child is. When determining where to place a child or where to transfer a child both school districts use race as the qualifying factor on where to send the child. Seattle allows students to choose a high school but when too many students choose a school they decide based on siblings in schools and the race of the child. Jefferson was originally ordered to desegregate its schools. In attempts to correct the problem Jefferson has a ratio that there should not be more than 50% black students at a particular school. A parent with a child from each district that was denied a transfer to another school based on the race of their child brought suit.

Issue.  

  whether a public school that had not operated a legally segregated school or has been found to be unitary may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classification in making school assignments. 

Brief Fact Summary.  

Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to cover the loopholes left in the first statute, The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that sought to control federal election campaign contributions.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

 Under the BCRA federal candidates and national party committees may not use soft-money funding for federal election campaigns.

Facts. The FECA sought to control contributions to federal election candidates. Electoral committees found loopholes to these rules. One of the biggest loopholes is what is called soft-money. Soft-money is money given to a national party that would use the money for activities intended to influence state or local elections. For example; paying for election advertising, giving money to organizations that would run election activities, and money given just to the national party but not the actual federal candidate.  The BCRA is an amendment to that act which directly addresses the use of soft-money donations. Money used to express an idea has long been held a right under the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. Plaintiffs bring this case stating that such restrictions on soft-money are a violation of that right.

Issue.  

  Whether restrictions on soft-money contributions to national party committees violates the First Amended Freedom of Speech.

Brief Fact Summary.  

The State of Massachusetts is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for denial of their rulemaking petition in connection to regulation of green-house gases.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

In order to have standing to sue in a federal court the petitioner must have; injury in fact, causation, and redressability in the claim, these elements are easier to meet if you are a State rather than an individual.

Facts. The coast of Massachusetts is in danger due to possible issues of global warming. In order to protect the State’s interest in the land on the coast, the State of Massachusetts petitions the EPA to regulate gas emissions from cars. There is much research to show such emissions add to green house gases that effect or cause global warming which in turn affects the water on the coast. The EPA denied the request. Now the State of Massachusetts is suing the EPA for not enforcing the Clean Air Act.

Issue.  

  Whether a State has standing to sue the EPA for not enforcing the Clean Air Act.

Brief Fact Summary.  

A student was awarded a grant for school and was not allowed to use those funds for a devotional degree.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  

A state may have a facially discriminatory practice against the Free Exercise clause as long as there is a substantial and historical state interest in doing so.

Facts. The State of Washington has a program called the Promise Scholarship Program. It gives funding to academically gifted students for postsecondary education. There is a rule that students may not use the funds for a solely devotional training. The student is allowed to attend a religious school and take religious classes, just not obtain a degree in those studies. Davey brought suit stating this exception to funding was a violation of his right of Free Exercise of Religion.

Issue.  

 Whether an exclusion from Scholarship funding that states it may not be used for solely devotional training is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Brief Fact Summary.  Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit offences triable by a military commission and was granted Habeas Corpus to dispute this charge.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Prisoners of war may not be tried in military commissions that do not afford the rights prescribed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions

Facts. It is alleged that between the years of 1996 and 2001 Hamdan was engaged in actions in preparation of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. Militia forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban captured Hamdan and turned him over to the U.S. Military in 2002. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. A United States occupied Military base. After a year of being detained without any charges being brought against him, President Bush declared that he had committed acts triable by a military commission. He was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses triable by the commission. This commission is created by military necessity, not by statute or constitutional power. This commission has a presiding officer and at least three other members. The accused is afforded military counsel, and a copy of the charges against him. This hearing may be conducted outside the presence of the accused for the accused does not have a right to see all evidence or hear all witness statement against him for purposes of national security. After being tried and convicted of conspiracy, Hamdan apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus stating he deserved all the constitutional rights afforded to him at trial, the writ was granted.

Issue. Whether Hamdan committed a crime triable by military commissions and whether that commission is constitutional.