Posts

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre

-
Image
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre Unbiased Case Analysis: In 2010 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed Yonas Fikre on their No Fly List. The FBI’s No Fly List bans anyone on the list from flying to, form, or over the United States. Yonas Fikre is a U.S. citizen who is Muslim and of Eritrean descent. He traveled to Sudan in 2010 on business but was questioned by the FBI. The FBI was suspicious of his activities and ties to the community. The FBI offered to bring Fikre on as an informant, but he refused. Later, he traveled to the United Arab Emirates where he was arrested and tortured for months by the country’s secret police. Eventually, he was released and sought asylum in Sweden. However, Sweden denied asylum and returned him to the United States.             Yonas Fikre sued the FBI for violating his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The FBI removed him from the No Fly List and claimed the case was now...
Post a Comment
Read more

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

-
Image
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Unbiased Case Analysis:             Joseph Kennedy was a high school football coach. For years he would pray at the 50 yard line after games. Eventually, the Bremerton School District found out about his actions and asked him to stop. The school district was concerned that the school would be sued for violating the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Endorsing a religion can be thrown into that definition. Although Kennedy did initially comply, he eventually continued to pray after the games. The school declined to rehire him after the season which Kennedy responded in turn suing the school. Kennedy argued his constitutional rights were being violated by the school. The district school ruled in favor of the school district. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The case was then h...
1 comment
Read more

Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota

-
Image
Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota Unbiased Case Analysis:             Geraldine Tyler owned a piece of property in Hennepin County, Minnesota. She failed to pay her property taxes, which eventually amounted to $15,000. The county eventually seized her property and sold it to pay off her property tax debt. However, they sold the property for $40,000 and kept the remaining $25,000. Geraldine Tyler sued the county arguing her 5th and 8th Amendment rights were violated by the county. The district court dismissed her case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision. Eventually, the Supreme Court heard the case and decided on it.             The Supreme Courted ruled unanimously in favor of Tyler. The Court found that Hennepin County’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Takings Clause requires the government to give just compen...
2 comments
Read more

Trump v. Anderson

-
Image
Trump v. Anderson Unbiased Case Analysis:             After former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, he refused to accept the results and challenged the outcome in court and in the media. He sparked a rally on January 6, 2021, which results in a protest and chaos at the Capital. He is running again for president in 2024 and needs the Republican Party’s nomination in every state to have a chance to win. The Colorado Supreme Court banned Trump from being listed on the state’s ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court based their argument around Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The section specifically bans individuals who incited insurrection from holding the office of president.             The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled on it. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Trump. The Court found that states cannot remove federal officials from office u...
1 comment
Read more

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counterman v. Colorado

-
Image
Counterman v. Colorado Unbiased Case Analysis: In 2014 Billy Counterman began sending Coles Whalen “weird” and “creepy” messages on Facebook. At the time Whalen was a local and rising musician in Denver, Colorado. Whalen attempted to block Counterman, but he would make new accounts to keep sending her messages. This cycle lasted for years until Colorado eventually prosecuted Counterman on charges of stalking and harassment. Counterman argued the First Amendment protected his right to send the messages to Whalen. However, the trial court found him guilty. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.             The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Counterman. The Court found that the trial court failed to use the correct test in Counterman’s case. The Court focused on what test should be used to determine whether a statement is a true threat. Colorado has ...
3 comments
Read more

Denezpi v. United States

-
Image
Denezpi v. United States Unbiased Case Analysis:             Merle Denezpi is a member of the Navajo tribe. He was charged with raping a woman and later accepted a plea deal in the Court of Indian Offenses. He was given 140 days to serve in jail and was eventually released in December of 2017. He was later charged again and indicted in a federal court. Merle Denezpi challenged the federal court’s ruling arguing that his prosecution violated the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause. He argued on the grounds that the Court of Indian Offenses was essentially a federal court. Therefore, he was charged by two federal courts for the same crime. The district court ruled against Denezpi with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit later affirming.             The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 6-3 against Denezpi. The Court’s majority did not b...
2 comments
Read more