In a constitutional system of government, the role of the judiciary is essential for maintaining the balance of power, protecting individual rights, upholding the rule of law, interpreting the Constitution, and ensuring equal justice for all. In this lesson, students learn about the role of an independent judiciary in the United States.
When National Security Trumps Individual Rights
On December 18, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most controversial decisions when it upheld the government’s decision to intern all persons of Japanese ancestry (both alien and nonalien) on the grounds of national security. Over two-thirds of the Japanese in America were citizens and the internment took away their constitutional rights. In this lesson, students evaluate the consequences of past events and decisions related to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944). They consider the challenges involved when trying to balance civil liberties and national security during threatening times and reflect on the lessons learned about civil liberties from the justices in the Korematsu case.
Moments in History: Remembering Thurgood Marshall
Few people know the legal mind of justices or judges as well as the law clerks who have worked with them. Justice Thurgood Marshall’s former law clerks offer unique insights into the character, values, and thought processes of the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. In this 8.5-minute video called “Moments in History: Remembering Thurgood Marshall,” prominent lawyers reminisce about the examples of compassion and courage they saw in the life and work of this legal legend.
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
Does the principle of “one person, one vote” permit states to use total population rather than total voter population when apportioning legislative districts? This case summary explores this question and the principle of one person, one vote, in this case about drawing district lines.
Making Our Fourth Amendment Right Real
This lesson plan is based on the Annenberg Classroom video “Search and Seizure: Mapp v. Ohio,” which explores the landmark search-and-seizure case that makes state governments also responsible for protecting our Fourth Amendment right. With the exclusionary rule, this right becomes real for all of us.
Your Right to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona
In 1966, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona dramatically changed criminal procedures. The Court linked the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to counsel and applied both to protect a suspect’s rights from arrest through trial. This lesson plan is based on the Annenberg Classroom video “The Right to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona.”
Civic Participation in the Justice System: How Individuals Shape Major Cases
Your students will analyze the impact of historic cases and the role of civic participation in these cases. Students will also demonstrate their understanding of the basic elements of a trial through a mock trial proceeding.
U.S. v Texas (2016)
Does DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore the Take Care Clause of the Constitution? The president may have overstepped his authority under Article II by establishing DAPA.
The Constitutional Convention: Should Judges Judge Laws?
History is the chronicle of choices made by actors/agents/protagonists in specific contexts. This simulation places students at the Constitutional Convention and asks them to engage with a problematic question: Who should have the final say in deciding whether a law or executive action is constitutional? Students will explore this in theoretical, practical, and political contexts. If one branch has the final say, does that negate the separation of powers? But if no branch has the final say, how are inter-branch disputes to be settled? If unelected justices of the Supreme Court can nullify legislative and executive measures, does that fly in the face of popular sovereignty? On the other hand, if constitutional interpretation is left to “the people,” how might that work, and might that lead to political turmoil?
Position Papers: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
Two position papers address the question in the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Is a Texas law imposing certain requirements on abortion clinics unconstitutional?