Case Study: Abington Township V. Schempp
Abington Township v Schempp
Date: Decided In June 17, 1963 or Feb 27,1976
Problem: Schempp filed suit on the Abington school district for requiring students to read verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania.
Outcome: Schempp argued that it was unconstitutional, violating religious freedom.
Part of the constitution:
The First amendment: exercise of free religion, speech, and press
The fourteen amendment: Never should any state impede the life, liberty, or property of a person
Precedent: Got rid of laws that required religion as part of public schools
Baker v Carr
Date: Decided on March 26, 1962
Problem: Charles w. Baker argued that Tennessee’s reapportionment failed to take into account economic and population change. The court …show more content…
She argued that her Right of Marital Privacy under the constitution was being violated.
Outcome: The court took into account the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments because they dealt with privacy, and they decided that the conviction was unconstitutional. They favored Griswold 7 to 2 votes, and therefore the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional.
Part of the constitution: First, Third, and Ninth Amendment
Precendent: The “right to privacy” is the precedent, which would later protect birth control.
Grutter v Bollinger/Gratz v Bollinger
Date: Decided June 23, 2003
Problem: Jennifer Gratz was denied the admission to University of Michigan’s College of literature, due to her race. The Supreme Court concluded that the denial was unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI Civil Rights Act because it wasn’t narrowly tailored. They set the precedent that colleges can’t subtract points from admission due to race, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Decided that same year another girl named Barbara Grutter was denied the admission to University of Michigan Law School, due to her race as well. The Supreme Court decided that the University didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause doesn’t forbid the Law school’s use of race as a factor in admissions in order to have a more diverse student
Date: Decided In June 17, 1963 or Feb 27,1976
Problem: Schempp filed suit on the Abington school district for requiring students to read verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania.
Outcome: Schempp argued that it was unconstitutional, violating religious freedom.
Part of the constitution:
The First amendment: exercise of free religion, speech, and press
The fourteen amendment: Never should any state impede the life, liberty, or property of a person
Precedent: Got rid of laws that required religion as part of public schools
Baker v Carr
Date: Decided on March 26, 1962
Problem: Charles w. Baker argued that Tennessee’s reapportionment failed to take into account economic and population change. The court …show more content…
She argued that her Right of Marital Privacy under the constitution was being violated.
Outcome: The court took into account the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments because they dealt with privacy, and they decided that the conviction was unconstitutional. They favored Griswold 7 to 2 votes, and therefore the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional.
Part of the constitution: First, Third, and Ninth Amendment
Precendent: The “right to privacy” is the precedent, which would later protect birth control.
Grutter v Bollinger/Gratz v Bollinger
Date: Decided June 23, 2003
Problem: Jennifer Gratz was denied the admission to University of Michigan’s College of literature, due to her race. The Supreme Court concluded that the denial was unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI Civil Rights Act because it wasn’t narrowly tailored. They set the precedent that colleges can’t subtract points from admission due to race, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Decided that same year another girl named Barbara Grutter was denied the admission to University of Michigan Law School, due to her race as well. The Supreme Court decided that the University didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause doesn’t forbid the Law school’s use of race as a factor in admissions in order to have a more diverse student