The Background of Boumediene v. Bush:

Boumediene v. Bush was a writ of habeas corpus that was made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene—a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was held in military detention by the United States at Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.

Guantanamo Bay is not formally a part of the United States and under the terms of the country’s lease with Cuba, the Cubans retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdictional control.

The case of Boumediene v. Bush was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States to ultimately challenge the legality of Boumediene’s detention at Guantanamo Bay.

The Boumediene v. Bush Trial:

On June 12, 2008, Associated Justice Kennedy decided, for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners on Guantamo bay had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the United States, by virtue of its jurisdiction and control over the base, that the country maintains “de facto” sovereignty over the territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. This label ultimately stated that the aliens detained at the base were enemy combatants and were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, which is protected in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. This ruling reversed the lower court’s decision, which stated that constitutional rights do not extend to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Case Profile of Boumediene v. Bush:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Boumediene v. Bush’:

Date of the Trial: Boumediene v. Bush was argued on December 5, 2007

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

United States Reports Case Number: 533 U.S. 723

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Boumediene v. Bush was decided on June 12, 2008

Legal Venue of Boumediene v. Bush: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, stated that suspects of foreign terrorism who are held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in the United States Court System.

Associated Legislation with regard to Boumediene v. Bush: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Boumediene v. Bush trial:

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

The Background of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale:

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was a landmark court case of the Supreme Court of the United States, which effectively overturned the New Jersey Supreme Court’s application of the New Jersey public accommodations law—a statute that forced the Boy Scouts of America to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale.

James Dale was expelled from the Boy Scouts of America, after officials of the organizations observed an interview and read a publication that was produced by Dale when he was a student at Rutgers University and the co-president of the Lesbian/Gay student alliance.

The Supreme Court of the United Sates held that the lower court’s decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of the Boy Scouts of America, which allows any private organization to exclude an individual from membership when “the presence of a person affects, in a significant way, the overall organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” The courts ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of the Boy Scout of America’s expressive message and allowing homosexuals to assume the role of a leader within the organization would be interfering with the group’s message. This ruling was appealed to the United States Supreme Court where Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that a private organization is allowed, under specific and certain criteria, to exclude a person from receiving a membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association.

The Case Profile of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘boy scouts of America v. dale’:

Date of the Trial: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was argued on April 26, 2000

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was decided on June 28, 2000.

Legal Venue of boy scouts of America v. dale: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America by stating that a private organization is allowed to exclude a person from receiving membership. This right, awarded to private organizations throughout the United States is protected under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants the right to freedom of association in spite of various state or anti-discrimination laws.

Who is Warren Jeffs?

Warren Jeffs is the acting president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Warren Jeff served as president of this religious organization from 2002 to 2007 and from 2011 to present day.

Warren Jeff, by many followers, is considered the Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints; as President and prophet of the religious institution, Warren Jeffs wields an enormous amount of religious as well as secular power. This power is primarily in alignment with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ theocratic principles.

Warren Jeffs Arrested:

Warren Jeffs gained international infamy in May of 2006 when the religious leader was placed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most wanted list. Warren Jeffs became a target of the FBI for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution in the state of Utah for charges relating to his alleged arrangement of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and numerous underage girls.

Warren Jeffs was arrested in late August of 2006 in Nevada and agreed to undertake a trial in Utah for his role in setting up these illegal marriage. In May and July of 2007, Arizona charged Warren Jeffs with eight additional counts—including partaking in illegal sexual activities with minors and incest—in two separate cases.

William Jeffs’ Court Cases and Legal Troubles:

Warren Jeffs’ trial began in early September of 2007 in St. George Utah. The trial lasted less than a month and on September 25th, Warren Jeffs was found guilty of two counts rape for his role as an accomplice. On November 20, 2007 Warren Jeffs was sentenced to prison for 10 years to life; Warren Jeffs began serving this sentence at the Utah State Prison. This conviction; however, was reversed by the Utah’s Supreme Court on July 27, 2010 because the jury operated under faulty instructions. Since this technicality ultimately freed Warren Jeffs of his previous charges, he was later extradited to Texas. That being said, Warren Jeffs is not free from legal quarrels, for he still faces pending charges of sexual assault and bigamy in connection with a raid on a West Texas ranch that took place in 2008.

The Background of Washington v. Glucksberg

Washington v. Glucksberg was a legal matter in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the right to assistance in committing suicide is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dr. Harold Glucksberg, along with four other doctors, a non-profit organization and three terminally ill patients challenged Washington State’s ruling against assisted suicide through the passing of the natural Death Act of 1979. The group of physicians, terminally ill patients and the Compassion in Dying organization claimed that the act of assisting one’s suicide was a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution through the Due Process Clause.

Washington v. Glucksberg Decision:

The Supreme Court Case of Washington v. Glucksberg reversed a previous ruling administered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who claimed that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in the state’s Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court claimed that because an assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty, it is not protected under the 14th Amendment.

The case was eventually heard in the United States Supreme Court, where Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that the ban was rational because it furthered various compelling state interests, primarily the preservation of human life and protecting the mentally ill or disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. The ban, according to Washington v. Glucksberg, stated that if the court system declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutional right, the nation would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary assisted suicide.

The Case Profile of Washington v. Glucksberg:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Washington v. Glucksberg’:

Date of the Trial: January 8, 1997

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 26, 1997

Legal Venue of Washington v. Glucksberg: United States Supreme Court by way of the United Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rhenquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment did not protect the right to commit assisted suicide

The Background of Weeks v. United States:

Weeks v. United States was a landmark Supreme Court decision where the courts ruled unanimously that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a direct violation of the United States’ Forth Amendment. Additionally, Weeks v. United States, set forth the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the admission of illegally obtained evidence in the federal court system.

Weeks v. United States Trial:

At its foundation, Weeks v. United States raised the question of what the Fourth Amendment requires; the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States had to answer whether the Fourth Amendment provides specific protections to private citizens of the United States and whether illegally obtained evidence can be used in a court of law.

Freemont Weeks was suspected of using the United States mail system to distribute chances in a lottery. This act was considered illegal gambling in the state of Missouri. Law enforcement officers of Missouri entered Weeks’ home, searched his room and seized possession of papers and other property belonging to him. Following this procedure, state agents returned to Weeks’ home to collect more evidence; in neither instance, did the law enforcement officers obtain a search warrant to seize Weeks’ possessions.

In Weeks v. United States, the plaintiff argued that because the Fourth Amendment states that people are safe from unlawful searches and seizures, thereby ruling any evidence obtained in violation of such a guarantee cannot be used in the court of law. Solicitor General Davis and Assistant Attorney General Denison presented the case on behalf of the United States and argued that the prosecution of Weeks proceeded in a logical sequence and that the police officers involved in the arrest and subsequent searches acted on an increasing body of evidence which incriminated Weeks in a violation of federal law. The Court; however, upheld the statements by Weeks and ruled in favor of him in Weeks v. United States.

The Case Profile of weeks v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘weeks v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: Weeks v. United States was argued on December 2nd and 3rd of 1913

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

United States Reports Case Number: 232 U.S. 383

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Weeks v. United States was decided on February 24, 1914

Legal Venue of weeks v. United States: United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Edward D. White

Verdict Delivered: The warrantless seizure of documents or possessions from a private residence violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. All evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from delivery in a federal criminal prosecution.

Supreme Court Defined:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judiciary system in the nation. As a result of this classification, the Supreme Court possesses ultimate, although largely discretionary, appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal court systems, as well as original jurisdictions or local courts, in the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court Building. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight acting associate justices who are nominated by the President of the United States of America and subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate. When a chief justice is appointed, he or she maintains life tenure unless they are removed after impeachment.

What is a Landmark Supreme Court Decision?

A Landmark Supreme Court Decision refers to any Supreme Court verdict that fundamentally changes the way society operates. The rulings or judgments made by the Supreme Court of the United States are not subjected for further review by additional court systems. As a result of this characteristic and the fact that the subject matter of a particular Supreme Court case is typically fundamental and important, a number of Supreme Court verdicts will establish a precedent and forever alter a particular sect or behavioral pattern in society.

Examples of Landmark Supreme Court Cases:

Marbury v Madison (1803): This landmark Supreme Court decision is regarded as the keystone power of Judicial Review. Through this landmark Supreme Court Judgment Judicial Review (the premise that a court system may oversee and nullify actions of another branch of government) was affirmed and formally established in this case. Marbury v. Madison is viewed as a historical and fundamental court decision that effectively altered the way a judicial body reviewed a case in alignment with a country’s constitution. This landmark Supreme Court Case was the first in the history of any judicial system to deem a ruling unconstitutional.

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857): This landmark Supreme Court judgment classified slaves as personal property. Although this ruling would be modified with subsequent legislation, this particular landmark Supreme Court Case essentially fueled the flames that led to the Civil War.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): A landmark Supreme Court judgment that acted as a groundbreaking step towards civil rights and the delivery of equal rights for all citizens of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education effectively ended the segregation of public schools throughout the United States of America.

NAACP v. Alabama (1958): A landmark Supreme Court judgment which protected the Freedom of association; this ruling enabled citizens of the United States to assemble in groups for a common political or human-rights based objective.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): The landmark Supreme Court case that declared each person’s vote to carry an equal measure.

Roe v. Wade (1973): A highly controversial Supreme Court judgment, which rules that states can and can and cannot control legality issues in regards to abortions.

United States v Nixon (1974): A landmark Supreme Court judgment that limited the President’s “Executive Privilege”, which in essence, limited the Commander and Chief’s authority and ability to exercise particular powers .

What is the Westboro Baptist Church?

The Westboro Baptist Church is an independent religious institution known its extreme and hateful stance against homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist church makes their sentiments towards homosexuality known through harsh protest activities that involve obscene acts of hatred against the homosexual community. The Westboro Baptist Church has often picketed funerals of deceased gay community members and desecrated on the American flag.

The Westboro Baptist Church, because of these egregious and hateful actions, is often described as a hate group. As a result of this classification, the Westboro Baptist Church is frequently monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.

The Westboro Baptist Church is run and headed by Fred Phelps; the hierarchy of the Westboro Baptist Church consists mostly of Phelps’ family members. The Westboro Baptist Church is located on the western portion of Topeka, Kansas, approximately three miles west of the Kansas State Capitol.

The Westboro Baptist Church has commonly participated and been involved with the anti-gay movement since 1991. During its origins, the Westboro Baptist Church sought a crackdown on homosexual activity at Gage Park, which is located approximately six blocks from the Church. In addition to their hate-filled protests, the Westboro Baptist Church has conducted anti-gay marches at military funerals and celebrity funerals to garner media attention.

The West Baptist Church is not affiliated with any formal Baptist conventions or associations. The Church justifies their hateful rhetoric and actions by claiming they are devout followers of Calvinist and Primitive Baptist principles. Although these statements are routinely offered by the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, mainstream Primitive Baptists reject the hateful actions undertaken by Phelps and his organization.

Supreme Court Case against the Westboro Baptist Church:

On March 10, 2006 the West Baptist Church picketed the funeral of a fallen Marine. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder sued the WBC for defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional delivery of emotional distress.

On October 31, 2007, Fred Phelps and his two daughters were found liable for invasion of privacy and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. A federal jury awarded the Snyder family $2.9 million in compensatory damages, then later added $6 million in punitive damges for invasion of privacy and an additional $2 million for causing emotional distress. The organization, although forced to pay these fines, claimed that it would not change its stance towards the homosexual community as a result of the verdict.

On September 24, 2009 a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church and effectively reversed the lower court’s awards. The appeals court stated that the picket line was protected by the 1st amendment because it involved “matters of public concern, including the issues of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church and the political and moral conduct of the united States and its citizens.” On march 30, 2010, the appeals court ordered the Snyder family to pay the church’s court costs. This ruling sparked a nationwide protest; over 3,000 Americans, including many media figures, offered to donate to the Snyder family and pay the fines associated with the WBC’s court costs.

The Background of Whren v. United States:

Whren v. United States was a United States Supreme Court ruling which declared that any traffic offenses committed by a driver is a legitimate and legally justified reason for a stop.

Whren and Brown were driving in a violent neighborhood when two plainclothes officers—who were patrolling the area in an unmarked vehicle—noticed the two men stopped at intersection for an unusually long amount of time. Without signaling, Whren and Brown sped away. When the officers noticed this violation, they stopped the vehicle, which was driven by Whren.

When the officers approached the car they noticed that Whren was holding plastic bags of crack cocaine. When and Brown were arrested on federal drug charges; however, they attempted to suppress the evidence before trial by contending that the officers used the traffic violation as a pretext for stopping the vehicle. Whren and Brown claimed that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the men on suspicion of drug dealing.

The District Court denied the motion to suppress the evidence and both Whren and Brown were formally convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Whren v. United States Trial:

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that as long as the police offices possessed reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle. In the case of Whren v. United States, the officers had reasonable cause to stop the individuals for a traffic violation because they sped away from a stop sign and without using their turn signal. Since an actual traffic violation took place, the ensuing search and seizure of the vehicle was in fact reasonable.

The Case Profile of Whren v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Whren v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: Whren v. United States was argued on April 1, 1996

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the District of Columbia against Whren and Brown within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The District of Columbia charged Whren with federal drug crimes for possessing crack cocaine. Whren and Brown attempted to suppress the possession of crack cocaine because the arresting officers only noticed the cocaine after a traffic violation. Whren and Brown claimed that the officers, based on the 4th Amendment’s search and seizure and reasonable suspicion clause, were not allowed to observe the contents within the car following a routine traffic stop.

United States Reports Case Number: 517 U.S. 806

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Whren v. United States was decided on June 10, 1996

Legal Venue of Whren v. United States: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court in, Whren v. United States, found that any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis to initiate a traffic stop.

The Background of Wickard v. Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn was a United States Supreme Court case that ultimately recognized the power of the United States federal government to regulate various forms of domestic economic activity.

Farmer, Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat that would be used for on-farm consumption. The United States Government had imposed limits on the amount of wheat production based on the amount of acreage owned by a farmer—the limits were set by the government to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression. Filburn, who was growing more than the regulations permitted, was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine to the United States Federal Government, even though the excess wheat was produced for his own use—Filburn had no intention of generating a profit through the surplus.

Wickard v. Filburn Trial:

The Supreme Court, using the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause (affirmed under Article 1 Section 8), decided that, as a result of Kilburn’s wheat growing activities, the amount of wheat he would be required to purchase on the open market for chicken feed and because wheat was traded nationally, his production of the excess wheat ultimately affected interstate commerce. Through this interpretation, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Wickard v. Filburn, stated that United States Federal Government was allowed to regulate wheat production, even if the excess would be used for personal consumption.

The Case Profile of Wickard v. Filburn:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘#’:

Date of the Trial: Originally Argued on May 4, 1942; Wickard v. Filburn was then re-argued on Ocotber 13, 1942.

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the United States Government against Roscoe Filburn within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The United States Federal Government fined Roscoe Filburn for producing more wheat than what was allowed based on the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8. The Supreme Court ruled the production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment act were applied to agricultural production that was consumed domestically, because its ultimate effect on interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Congress Clause.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: November 9, 1942

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

The Background of Wisconsin v. Yoder:

Wisconsin v. Yoder is United States Supreme Court Case, which ultimately found that Amish children cannot be placed under compulsory education past the 8th grade, for it violated their parents’ basic right to freedom of religion.

Three Amish students, from different families, ceased to attend New Glarus High School in New Glarus, Wisconsin following completion of 8th grade. The students stopped attending school as per request of their parents—each student’s parent requested that the youths stop attending school because of their religious beliefs.

The families were represented by Jonas Yoder (a father involved in the matter) when the case formally went to trial. The children were ultimately convicted in the Green County Court; this ruling was ultimately upheld in the appeals circuit. Each defendant was fined $5 dollars; following the original appeal, Yoder took the case to the state’s Supreme Court.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Trial:

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Yoder’s favor—this ruling was later appealed by the state of Wisconsin to United States Supreme Court. Following the ruling in Wisconsin v. Yoder, The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision and ruled in favor Yoder in unanimous fashion. Justice William Douglas, who presided over the case, filed a partial dissent; however, he voted with the court in favor of Yoder, by stating “application of the compulsory school-attendance law violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The Case Profile of Wisconsin v. Yoder:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled Wisconsin v. Yoder:

Date of the Trial: Wisconsin v. Yoder was argued on December 8, 1971

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Wisconsin v. Yoder was decided on May 15, 1972

Legal Venue of Wisconsin v. Yoder: Wisconsin Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Verdict Delivered: The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because required attendance passed the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.