What were the Nuremberg Trials?

The Nuremberg trials were a series of international trials that were held in the German city of Nuremberg. The trials, which were of a criminal nature, took place in the wake of the Second World War. During the Nuremberg trials, the Allied Forces aimed to bring the architects of the Nazi regime to legal justice; the Allied forces, through the Nuremberg trials, tried numerous individuals who were aligned with the Nazi war machine. Although these efforts were applauded and deemed as noble, many of the premier participants in the Nazi regime were absent from the Nuremberg trials—many Nazis evaded capture by fleeing to other countries.

In the early months of 1943, the Allied forces agreed that some form of tribunal must be developed and held after the war to bring the Nazis to justice. The Allied forces developed and delivered this tribunal to hold the Nazis accountable for their atrocious war crimes—which were viewed as going far and beyond the norm expected in a war.

The Nuremberg trials were viewed as a benchmark and fundamental buttress for international law; the Nuremberg trials were a radical development of the International criminal justice system that ultimately played a principal role in the drafting of documents—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Nuremberg Trials Explained:

The Nuremberg trials opened in 1945, as cases were brought against 22 prominent members of the Nazi regime. 12 of these 22 cases resulted in the delivery of death sentences for egregious violations of basic human rights. The Nuremberg trials, due to the precedent set and the overall viciousness of the Nazi regime, cited the Nuremberg laws, which were in essence the framework of the Nazi regime’s brutal actions.

In the first year of the Nuremberg trials, the stand was taken by individuals who played a fundamental part in creating and implementing the ideology of the Nazi regime. Through 1949, the Nuremeberg trials effectively brought lesser Nazi regime members to justice. The Nuremberg laws, when implemented in the Nuremberg trials, established volumes of case materials which would be ultimately used as precedents in future cases that involved blatant violations of human rights. The Nuremberg trials were implemented by Britain, the United States, Russia and France.

The Nuremberg Laws:

The Nuremberg laws were a series of anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany that were introduced during the Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi party. The Nuremberg laws classified individuals based on their lineage; those with four German grandparents were referred to as German or possessing “kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewsih grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was referred to as a Mischling or a crossbreed of “mixed blood”. The Nuremberg laws deprived Jewish people of receiving German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Germans and those individuals who were of Jewish decent.

The Nuremberg laws also placed a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as Jewish and non-Jewish Germans. In addition, the Nuremberg laws prevented Jewish people from participating in German civic life.

What is an Act of Terror?

An act of terrorism refers to a systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Granted, there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism; however, common characteristics of a terrorist act will incorporate the institution or delivery of violent acts, which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. A terrorist act is typically carried out for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently perpetuate violence without regard as to the safety of civilians in hopes of forcefully instilling an ideological principle.

A terrorist organization, to achieve their intended goals, will use violence to augment fear in a given society; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation fearful.  All terrorists–and their underlying terrorist organizations–will not align themselves with government organizations or formal government bodies.

Definitions of terrorism will always include acts of unlawful violence and war. That being said, any action that precipitates violence on a society and disrupts the harmony and general function of a sociological setting will be considered an act of terrorism.

The World Trade Center Bombing:

On February 26th, 1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. The World Trade Center bombing was sparked through the detonation of a 1,500 lb. urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced bomb. This device, as intended to topple the North Tower into the South Tower, effectively collapsing both buildings while killing thousands of people. Although this plan ultimately failed, the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 killed seven people and injured close to 1,100.

Who Planned the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993?

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was planned by an organization of extremists including, Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Mahmud Abouhalima, Nidal Ayyad, Ahma Ajaj and Abdul Rhman Yasin. This group received funding to enact the World Trade Center Bombing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed—Ramzi Yousef’s Uncle.

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was precipitated by three principle demands, laid out by the terrorists to local newspapers before the attack. Yousef, who mailed various letters to New York newspapers, stating that the United States must cut-off aid to Israel, put an end to the United States’ diplomatic relations Israel, and end all interference with any Middle Eastern affairs. Yousef, in these letters, stated that the World Trade Center bombing would merely be the first act of terrorism if his demands were not met. Furthermore, Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was a direct act of terrorism, but it was a justified action, because “the terrorism that Israel practices and America supports must be faced with a similar one.”

World Trade Center Bombing Investigation and Arrests:

Following the World Trade Center Bombing, numerous agents and technicians of the ATF, FBI and NYPD quickly responded on the scene. In the days following the World Trade Center Bombing, investigators combed through the rubble in the underground parking lot where they ultimately located a piece of the bomb’s transport vehicle. A vehicle identification number was eventually obtained, which led them to investigate where the rental truck came from. Investigators determined that the vehicle was rented by Mohammad Salameh—one of Yousef’s chief conspirators.

Salameh’s eventual arrest led police to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin; Yasin was eventually taken to FBI headquarters; however, he was released and escaped the following day back to Iraq—Yasin remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list.

In March of 1994, four men (Abouhalima, Ajaj, Salameh and Ayyad) were convicted of carrying out the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The charges included: conspiracy, the explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, Yousef and Eyad ismoil, were formally convicted for their role in the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993.

The Background of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

In 2001, the Defendant Yaser Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan in the midst of the military operations undertaken by the United States in that region. Although Hamdi was a citizen of the United States, he was apprehended while fighting alongside the Taliban – a faction considered to be an enemy of the United States; upon his apprehension, Hamdi was extradited to the United States and detained at a military prison within the State of Virginia. Within his apprehension, Hamdi claimed that he was denied legal counsel; Hamdi also claimed that he was being unlawfully detained:

Article II of the United States’ Constitution implements the separation of administrative jurisdiction, specifically outline the prohibition from any branch of the Federal government from infringing upon the protection and preservation of national security

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Hamdi – the protocol regarding American citizens classified as enemies of the United States

The Case Profile of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

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

Date of the Trial: April 28th, 2004

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 Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi against Donald H. Rumsfeld – acting as the Secretary of Defense of the United States – within the trial brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Hamdi accused the Federal Government of violating his 8th Amendment Rights, which entitle American Citizens to subjugation to due process; this not only requires a fair hearing to take place – in addition to the provision of legal counsel – but also provides protection against unlawful detainment

United States Reports Case Number: 542 U.S. 507

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 2004

Legal Venue of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case:

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi; Plaintiff(s) – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Donald H. Rumsfeld; Defendant – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that his arrest had violated the Due Process Clause outlined within the Constitution; this clause is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. The ruling stated that Hamdi would be entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the 8th Amendment

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

Subsequent to an arrest, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

The Background of Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested as a result of driving with a suspended license; he had parked his vehicle and was arrested while on the property of an acquaintance. Shortly after Gant was detained in a police vehicle, the Arizona Police enacted a search of his vehicle in which they discovered cocaine and a firearm; as a result of this search, Gant was not only charged with the operation of a motor vehicle without a license, but also with the possession of a firearm, the possession of cocaine, and the intent to distribute cocaine. Subsequent to his arrest, Gant cited the Arizona Police with undertaking an illegal search and seizure lacking probable cause – a violation of his 4th Amendment Rights.

New York v. Belton (1981) mandated an ideology with regard to the required protocol within an arrest process rooted within an ‘If Arrest, Then Search’ approach with regard to any or all compartments of the vehicle deemed to exist on the ‘passenger’s side’; in accordance to this ruling, the Arizona Police enacted their search of Gant’s vehicle

The Case Profile of Arizona v. Gant

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

Date of the Trial: October 7th, 2008

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Arizona against Rodney Joseph Gant within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police performed an illegal search of his property resulting from the absence of a search warrant; a search warrant is the expressed, legal permission for applicable – and approved – law enforcement agents to enter the personal, private property belonging to an individual with the intention of placing that individual under arrest

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police had acted in lieu of probable cause, defined as the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 556 U.S. __

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 21st, 2009

Legal Venue of Arizona v. Gant: The Supreme Court of the United States

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

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Arizona v. Gant case:

The State of Arizona; Plaintiff – Arizona v. Gant

Rodney Joseph Gant; Defendant – Arizona v. Gant

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gant stating that the police searches are only viewed as constitutional in the event that they result from sufficient probable cause with regard to evidence latent existing in conjunction with the reasoning for the search. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the police lacked sufficient evidence to suspect that Gant would be in violation of anything outside of the illegal operation of a motor vehicle, they overturned his conviction with regard to both the firearm and drug charges.

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

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

In the event that an individual is arrested, criminal law protocol within the United States maintains the innocence of that individual unless they are found guilty within a court of law or they have admitted guilt on their own accord

The Background of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In 1824, the State Government of New York State allowed for 2 men – Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston – to maintain the authority to regulate the waterways existing between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibson, a facilitator of a commercial steamboat operation existing between New York and New Jersey, was permitted to operate his steamboats on an interstate basis. Aaron Ogden maintained that due to the fact that Gibbons’ actions occurred on an interstate level, the jurisdiction of regulation of Gibbons was under the jurisdiction of the Federal government in lieu of the State Government of New York State; Ogden insisted that Gibbons’ license be revoked. Gibbons’ attorney explained that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution expressed that the Federal government only be permitted to regulate commercial activity existing on an interstate basis that involves ‘Several’ states:

The Commerce Clause within the United States’ Constitution explains that the regulation and oversight of trade involving nations outside of the United States, Native American Tribes, and ‘Several’ States will be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

The Case Profile of Gibbons v. Ogden

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

Date of the Trial: February 5th, 1824

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 Thomas Gibbons against Aaron Ogden within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gibbons explained that Ogden’s claims were unconstitutional due to the fact that the participation of 2 States neither fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the classification of ‘several’

United States Reports Case Number: 22 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 2nd, 1824

Legal Venue of Gibbons v. Ogden: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gibbons v. Ogden case:

Thomas Gibbons; Plaintiff – Gibbons v. Ogden

Aaron Ogden; Defendant – Gibbons v. Ogden

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ogden, explaining that the Federal Government was eligible for any nature of jurisdiction and regulation of interstate activity – regardless of the number of participatory States – as a result of the Supremacy Clause. This ruling also solidified the term ‘several’ to imply any nature of interstate commerce.

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

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

The Background of Baker v. Carr (1961)

Within the legislation expressed in the Tennessee State Constitution –enacted in 1901 – required that the districts of Tennessee be reformulated every 10 years in order to accommodate an accurate portrayal of the population with regard to each respective jurisdiction. Charles Baker explained that the State had refused to remap the districts in accordance to the precepts set forth within the applicable legislature. Although the State of Tennessee maintained that the adherence to the measures of districts was political in nature, Baker contended that the establishment of districts was a legislative matter:

The nature of legal issues rooted in politics in contrast with those rooted in legislature were called into question with regard to the analysis of Baker’s complaint; Baker brought forth the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution, which mandated the Federal government’s eligibility to maintain jurisdiction over State legislation

The Case Profile of Baker v. Carr

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

Date of the Trial: October 9th, 1961

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

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Charles W. Baker against Joe C. Carr – the appointed representative of the State of Tennessee – within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Baker maintained that the legislation expressed in the State of Tennessee’s Constitution in 1901 with regard to the establishment of districts was in direct violation of 14th Amendment Rights entitled to citizens of the United States

United States Reports Case Number: 369 U.S. 186

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 26th, 1962

Legal Venue of Baker v. Carr: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Baker v. Carr case:

Charles W. Baker; Plaintiff – Baker v. Carr

Joe C. Carr; Defendant – Baker v. Carr

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court claimed that the State of Tennessee’s refusal to adhere to the expressed legislation of remapping districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires that every individual citizen of the United States be entitled to equal, uniform, and unbiased protection and preservation with regard to the pursuit of happiness.

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

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

The Background of Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The case of Gitlow v. New York was a trial that took place in 1925 with regard to the application of the tenets and precepts expressed within the Constitution of the United States – as well as those expressed within the Amendments; this trial addressed both the Federal Government’s – as well as the individual States’ – responsibility to uphold civil liberties expressed within the Consitution. Benjamin Gitlow, who was considered to be both a Socialist – as well as a potential anarchist threat to the United States government, was charged with a violating ‘Anti-Anarchist’ legislature upheld by the State of New York; prior to his arrest, Gitlow had been charged with releasing publications presumed to be latent with Anti-American rhetoric. Subsequent to his initial conviction, Benjamin Gitlow appealed his conviction, stating that his conviction was in direct violation of both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights expressed in the Constitution; the appeal hearing became what is now considered ‘Gitlow v. New York’.

The Case Profile of Gitlow v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gitlow v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: November 23rd, 1923

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 %%% against %%%%

Although Gitlow was convicted of violating applicable legislation enacted within the State of New York prohibiting expression considered to be ‘Anti American’, Gitlow appealed his conviction accusing the State of New York of violating his Constitutional rights

United States Reports Case Number: 268 U.S. 652

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 8th, 1925

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: William H. Taft

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gitlow v. New York case:

Benjamin Gitlow – the plaintiff – was an social activist and author

The State of New York – the defendant – was cited for a violation of Gitlow’s Constitutional rights

Verdict Delivered: Benjamin Gitlow remained guilty of his crimes, but the Supreme Court mandated that individual State governments were unable to deny their residents the civil and human rights expressed within the Constitution of the United States

Associated Legislation with regard to Gitlow v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gitlow v. New York trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures that all citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech; this statute also includes the freedom to express oneself in accordance to accepted and undertaken legislation and legality – this statute includes the freedom to join and participate in activities and engagements upon choosing to do so without threat or duress

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Troy Leon Gregg was an individual who was incarcerated within the State of Georgia subsequent to his arrest and conviction of the murder of two individuals in 1973; subsequent to his trial, the jury had found Gregg guilty and had sentenced him to death. Gregg was the first individual in the history of the United States whose respective execution was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States; however, during the evening prior to his execution, Gregg escaped from incarceration and was killed in North Carolina as a result of scuffle in which he was involved:

Capital Punishment, which is also known as the Death Penalty, is the legal process enabling State and Federal Governments to enact executions with regard to convicted criminals for whom the presiding jury has deemed the death penalty to be fair and applicable punishment

The Case Profile of Gregg v. Georgia

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

Date of the Trial: March 30th – 31st, 1976

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Over the course of his incarceration, not only Gregg, but also fellow death row inmates Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, James Tyrone Woodson petitioned that capital punishment was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution

United States Reports Case Number: 428 U.S. 153

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: July 2nd, 1976

Legal Venue of Gregg v. Georgia: The Supreme Court of the United States

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

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gregg v. Georgia case:

Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson; Plaintiff(s) –

The State of Georgia; Defendant –

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Georgia, stating that the execution of Troy Gregg was Constitutional due to the fact that it was tried, heard and sentenced through the Judicial system; furthermore, the jury who had sentenced him to death were determined to have presumably heard the case details and analyzed them carefully, objectively, and ethically. In addition, the susceptibility of the sentencing to subsequent appeals allows the notion of capital punishment to be ineligible for the classification of cruel or unusual.

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

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut addressed a Connecticut statute that prohibited the use of any drug, pharmaceutical, or instrument undertaken in order to serve as contraception for pregnancy.  Estelle Griswold, serving as the director of the Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood – an institution that advocates for the responsible undertaking of sexual activity in order to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy – was cited for the violation of the aforementioned Connecticut statute upon distributing and advocating for the use of prophylactics:

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of circumstances of privacy and private domains; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue infringement and violations

The Case Profile of Griswold v. Connecticut

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

Date of the Trial: March 29th, 1965

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 Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton against the State of Connecticut within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Griswold stated that her arrest was a direct violation of her 14th Amendment Rights, allowing her the right to privacy; she claimed that the Connecticut statute infringed upon personal freedoms belonging – and entitled – to American Citizens

United States Reports Case Number: 381 U.S. 479

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 7th, 1965

Legal Venue of Griswold v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Griswold v. Connecticut case:

Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton; Plaintiff(s) – Griswold v. Connecticut

The State of Connecticut; Defendant – Griswold v. Connecticut

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut statute forbidding the use of prophylactics, stating that the statute was in direct violation of the expressed right to privacy within a private setting. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights, which included the 14th Amendment. As a result, the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power with regard to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

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

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Barbara Grutter, Michigan resident and applicant to the Law School at the University of Michigan, filed an injunction against the university in 2007; subsequent to her rejection from admissions to the University, she had claimed that applicants classified as minorities – possessing inferior academic records than she – were accepted in lieu of her superior academic records. Almost 20 years prior to this case, Allan Bakke had filed an injunction against the University of California for similar reasons – and had his injunction upheld by the Supreme Court:

In the verdict delivered in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), Bakke cited unfair acceptance policies undertaken by the University of California; Bakke mentioned that applicants deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke – Bakke, who had been rejected from the school, mentioned that his 14th Amendment Rights had been violated

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no racial or ethnic preference shall be given or granted to any particular group by any institution or program in receipt of federal funding or monetary restitution

The Case Profile of Grutter v. Bollinger

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

Date of the Trial: April 1st, 2003

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

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Barbara Grutter against Lee Bollinger within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Grutter maintained that in accordance to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), she was subject to similar violations of her 14th Amendment Rights; she added that the Equality Clause within the 14th Amendment ensured equal translation and expression of the law without regard to race, religion, creed, gender, or ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 306

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 23rd, 2003

Legal Venue of Grutter v. Bollinger: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Grutter v. Bollinger case:

Barbara Grutter; Plaintiff – Grutter v. Bollinger

Lee Bollinger; Defendant – Grutter v. Bollinger

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan; in accordance to their ruling, they required the overturning of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke verdict, as well. The reasons for the decision were explained as follows:

Due to the fact that the Law School admission process involved supplemental facets outside of academic records, there was no way to prove that the applicants had been accepted as a result of their respective race(s)

While a quota employed by the admissions committee is indeed a Constitutional violation, the acknowledgment of race with regard to acceptance is defined as the legal protocol innate within Affirmative Action

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

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age