You are on page 1of 3

Welcome to the Supreme Court.

You have been appointed to the highest court in the United States based on your legal skills, your ability to deal with difficult situations and your total commitment to protecting the values that American holds dear. There are already a number of cases that youll have to deal with. Your first task is to study the case, research it and then with your fellow judges discuss it. Then you will right a written verdict which will explain your views on the case and the issues at hand.

Case 1: Jones vs. Education Board for the State of California (2011) This case concerns a complaint made by the claimant Jeremiah Amadeus Jones. Mr Jones (aged 17) is a student at Los Angeles State Provincial School in California. He has recently taken up the option to study Biology at the school. However upon taking Biology at the School Mr Jones has found that the school rejects the Theory of Evolution proposed by Charles Darwin and instead follows a set Curriculum which instead teaches the Creationist Theory on the creation of Earth and Man. Mr Jones is of the belief that this is not science and will impact on his ability to get a job. Mr Jones has already declared an interest in working for the California State Science Department with a specialism in Molecular Biology. The Education Board of California State has responded that the choice whether to teach Creationism or Evolution is a matter entirely for the choice of the Schools, the only requirement that the State of California requests is set out in the Education of Youths Act 2005. This act states that any school wishing to teach either Creationism or Evolution must ensure that the teacher of this subject must have a qualification to teach both, so that students of different religious backgrounds will not be adversely affected. Los Angeles State Provincial School has also responded by stating that they have the highest standard of teaching of any school in the Los Angeles District, and whilst they accept Mr Jones complaint they reject the notion that he will be disadvantaged by the study of Creationism. They believe that he will be enlightened and will grow to understand the importance of Intelligent Design in all aspects of life.

Case 2: Secretary of State vs. American Civil Liberties Union (2011) This case concerns the treatment of former CIA agent Stephanie Wilks. Agent Wilks was an employee of the Central intelligence Agency (CIA) until September 2010. During her time working for the CIA Agent Wilks was involved in the prevention of Terrorism in the United States and also working on the release of a number of US hostages who had been detained in Egypt. Agent Wilks signed a number of confidentiality clauses upon joining the CIA in 2000 which prevent her from ever disclosing details of her activities within the CIA. In September 2010 Agent was found to be in possession of a large quantity of Cannabis whilst at work and she was subsequently removed from her position on the grounds of a gross breach of her contract. In December 2011 a number of articles appeared in the New York Times which alerted the attention of the CIA. The articles gave detailed accounts of a number of CIA operations which were until this point Classified as Top Secret. The articles listed a number of military installations that US controlled in the Middle East, as well as the number of troops there. It also gave details of private conversations that US agents had with their counterparts in South Korea, about the possibility of a bombing campaign on North Korean Military Installations. After some research it was declared that Agent Wilks was responsible for the articles and she was detained under the PATRIOT Act. Until this point Agent Wilks has received no legal representation, she has currently been refused access to the Courts and her current whereabouts are unclear. This action has been brought on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Case 3: Walters vs. State Library of Kentucky (2011) This case deals with a complaint brought by Sam Walters against her local Library and defended by the State Libraries Association of Kentucky. Sam Walters (aged 32) has been attending her local library in Somerset for a number of years and has recently been undertaking an adult learning course in Information Computer Technology. As part of this arrangement she spends 10 hours a week at a local college and 5 hours using computers to complete assignments online. Sam Walters officially qualifies for State Benefits due to her low earnings and as such is provided with free access to computers at the Somerset Library. However Miss Walters has recently found that her account has been disabled by technicians at the Library. When Miss Walters has questioned this she has been informed by the Library that she has used her account to access pornographic resources and download them remotely. Miss Walters has rejected this claim arguing that she has only research Pornographic material as part of her ICT assignment into Online Censorship (this has been independently confirmed to be true) and that she has not downloaded any information at all. She is also arguing that the Library have therefore allowed someone to access her account without her consent and use it to download pornographic material. The State Library of Kentucky has commented that this would be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve as most Libraries in the State of Kentucky use advanced Anti-Virus and Filtering software which would firstly deny access to such material and also stop it being downloaded. As a result of Miss Walters account being suspended she has failed her ICT course.

Case 4: National Gun Owners Association vs. Licensing Authority of Maine (2011) This is an action brought on behalf of the National Gun Owners Association against the introduction of the Firearms Limitation Act 2011 which has recently been passed the State Legislature in Maine. The act contains the following provisions: (1) In the State of Maine it is hereby an offence for any individual to: (a) Carry on their person any handgun or rifle which; (i) Is loaded (ii) The Individual is solely responsible for (iii) May threaten and individual in their vicinity (2) The carrying of any such weapon is punishable in a 3 year ban on the ownership of any gun and requires the individual to sign up to a Gun Control Register which will be distributed amongst all weapons vendors in Maine. The National Gun Owners Association argues that this provision infringes upon the 2nd Amendment and also Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The Maine Licensing Authority has argued that the interpretation of Article 2 should be subject itself to Judicial Review.

Case 5: National Socialist Party of Texas vs. State of Texas (2011) This is an action brought against the National Socialist Party by the Governor of Texas. The National Socialist Party of Texas was formed in 1986 and recently had its position confirmed as a legal political party by the Supreme Court of Texas in a separate State case. This National Socialist Party of Texas Constitution clearly states that it will only accept Americans of pure birth. Pure birth is defined in the partys constitution as American by at least 3 generations, white, male and of Germanic appearance. In 2009 Saidi Rafique a Property Developer attempted to join the National Socialist Party but was denied entry to the organisation on the grounds that he did not match the criteria for membership set out in the partys constitution. Mr Rafique took his claim to the Governor of Texas who is sponsoring this appeal. The National Socialist Party argues that it cannot allow Mr Rafique to join their organisation for a number of reasons. Firstly it is incompatible with the Partys constitution and the ideological views of the party. Secondly it is incompatible with the partys aims for Government. The State of Texas has responded by stating that Local and National Election laws require that all political parties have an open membership system. To refuse membership to any individual based on race, gender, age, religious views or ethnicity is the State argues unconstitutional and immoral.

You might also like