Should violent juvenile offenders be punished as adults? This activity includes a deliberation reading and glossary, as well as accompanying handouts to give students additional information on the topic and to guide them through the deliberation process from planning to reflection.
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
This case explores the following issues: Do Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina (the plaintiffs) have constitutional standing to make these partisan gerrymandering challenges? Are the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims able to be heard by the Court? If plaintiffs have standing and their claims are justiciable, is North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander?
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association (2019)
Does a local government’s display and maintenance of a 40-foot tall Latin cross on public property, established in memory of fallen World War I soldiers, violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.
Classifying Arguments Activity: Flowers v. Mississippi
Classifying Arguments is a SCOTUS case study strategy in which students are given arguments from each side of a case and tasked with identifying whether each argument supports the petitioner or the respondent. In this classroom-ready activity, students will examine arguments from Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks: Did the Mississippi Supreme Court err in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky in this case? An answer key is also available for download.
Flowers v. Mississippi (2019)
Did the Mississippi Supreme Court err in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky in this case? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.
Classifying Arguments Activity: Timbs v. Indiana
Classifying Arguments is a SCOTUS case study strategy in which students are given arguments from each side of a case and tasked with identifying whether each argument supports the petitioner or the respondent. In this classroom-ready activity, students will examine arguments from Timbs v. Indiana, a case about selective incorporation, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and civil asset forfeiture. An answer key is also available for download.
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.
The 14th Amendment and the Evolution of Title IX
Congress and the courts have applied the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to many aspects of public life over the past 150 years. In this activity, students will explore the evolution of the 14th Amendment through the lens of Title IX, which prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from excluding students from participating in educational and athletic programs on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court’s first Title IX case, Grove City College v. Bell, also demonstrates how each of the three branches exercises its authority.
The Role of the Judiciary
In this lesson, students learn about the judicial system, aka the judiciary. First, students read and discuss an article on the role, structure, and principles of the judiciary. Next, they participate in a Civil Conversation on the reading. In this structured discussion method, under the guidance of a facilitator (the teacher), participants are encouraged to engage intellectually with challenging materials.
Pathways to the Bench
U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, of Minnesota, is featured in the latest installment of the Pathways to the Bench video series produced by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to inspire and inform the public about the human face of the federal judiciary. In the series, individual judges talk about the personal, character-building challenges that have prepared them to serve on the bench. In this brief video, Judge Frank says that adversity has made him a better person and a better jurist.