Landmark Supreme Court cases and what each decided

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to E on Miranda v. Arizona. Card A, "The Fifth Amendment" (National Archives transcript, exact, one clause): "…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…" Card B, "The holding" (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Card C, "What custodial interrogation means" (same opinion, exact): "By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Card D, "The warnings" (same opinion, exact): "…he must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." Card E, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): The vote was 5 to 4. Ernesto Miranda was questioned by Phoenix police in 1963 without being told his rights.

2. 1.

   Invented case: officers arrest a person, then ask in a patrol car where stolen goods are, with no warning. The person answers. Ari applies Cards B to D. Can the prosecution use it?

   • Yes: the person has not been charged yet, and Card C protects people who have been charged
   • Not without the safeguards: officers questioned a person who was already in custody
   • No: any statement made to an officer is barred, whether or not the person is in custody
   • Yes: the person answered freely, and Card B bars statements that were forced by threats alone
3. 2.

   Invented case: a person walks into a station, free to leave, and tells an officer about a crime. No warning is given. Bo applies Card C. Does it require warnings?

   • No: the statement is allowed if the person had a lawyer present
   • No: the person was not in custody and no officer started questioning, so Card C is not met
   • Yes: no warning was given before the statement, and Card D requires warnings before any statement
   • Yes: the statement was made in a police station, and Card B covers any statement made there
4. 3.

   Jun reads this claim: 'Miranda shows the Court wrote a rule the text never required.' Which response do Cards A, B and E best support?

   • Right: Card A says nothing about police, so the safeguards in Card B are the Court's own addition
   • Wrong: Card B shows the Court relied on the Fifth Amendment, so the rule came from the text alone
   • Wrong: Card A lists the four warnings, so Card B just repeats what the text required
   • Contestable: safeguards tied to Card A's privilege, and a 5 to 4 vote shows judges disagreed

5. Use this

   Cards A to E on Tinker v. Des Moines. Card A, "The First Amendment" (National Archives transcript, exact, one clause): "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Card B, "Justice Fortas" (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." Card C, "The limit" (same opinion, exact): "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason—whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Card D, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): The vote was 7 to 2. Iowa students wore black armbands to school in 1965 to protest the Vietnam War, and the school suspended them. Card E, "A case in Marlow" (invented, for practice): At Marlow Middle School students wear green ribbons to protest a cafeteria rule. Teachers say some students might argue about it, but no class has been stopped.

6. 4.

   Kira applies Cards B to E to the Marlow ribbons. Can the school punish the students?

   • Yes: the ribbons are a protest, and Card A protects quiet, private speech alone
   • No: Card B shows students have the same speech rights at school as outside, so no rule can limit them
   • Not on that ground: Card B says fear of disturbance is not enough, and Card C requires disruption
   • Yes: a school may punish any speech that might cause an argument among students
7. 5.

   Now suppose the Marlow ribbons caused a hallway fight, and a class was stopped. Luz uses Card C. What changes?

   • The school may act: Card C leaves material disruption and substantial disorder unprotected
   • The school may act if it shows the message on the ribbons was false
   • The school may ban ribbons in future, even before any disruption, since this one caused a fight
   • Nothing: Tinker protected armbands, so the ribbons stay protected whatever happens
8. 6.

   Noah reads this claim: 'Tinker proves students may say anything at school.' Which response do Cards B, C and D best support?

   • Wrong: Card A protects speech outside schools alone, so Tinker rests on another clause
   • Overstated: Card C names a limit, and Card D concerns quiet armbands, not any speech at all
   • Right: Card B says students do not shed their rights, which covers each kind of speech
   • Wrong: the 7 to 2 vote shows two justices thought students have no rights at school

9. Use this

   Cards A to D on New Jersey v. T.L.O. Card A, "The Fourth Amendment" (National Archives transcript, exact): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Card B, "The Court" (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "…the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search." Card C, "The two questions" (same opinion, exact): "Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." Card D, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): The vote was 6 to 3. A vice principal searched a student's purse after a teacher reported that the student had broken a school rule.

10. 7.

    Invented case: a classmate says a student took a calculator from a teacher's desk. The vice principal opens the student's backpack and finds it. Pia applies Card C. Is the search justified?

    • Yes: a school official may search a student for any reason, since Card B calls the test reasonableness
    • Yes: the classmate's report gives reasonable grounds, and a calculator fits in a backpack
    • No: Card A requires a warrant based on probable cause before any search of a student
    • No: a classmate's report cannot give grounds, since a teacher's own sight is the sole ground
11. 8.

    Same case, but the vice principal also reads the student's diary pages. Ren applies Card C. What follows?

    • Both searches are justified, because a school official may look wherever a student might hide something
    • The first search fails the grounds question, so the diary search does not reach the scope question
    • The diary search fails the scope question: reading a diary is not reasonably related to finding a calculator
    • The diary search is justified, since the first search already met the grounds question
12. 9.

    Tala reads Cards B and C. How does Card C turn Card B's test into something a school official can apply?

    • It splits reasonableness into two questions: grounds at the start and a scope fitted to the goal
    • It applies the first question to the student's age and the second to the rule broken
    • It lets the official decide both questions alone, so a court may not review either one
    • It replaces reasonableness with a warrant rule, so Card B no longer governs school searches
13. 10.

    Zee reads this claim: 'T.L.O. means students have no Fourth Amendment rights at school.' Which response do Cards B and C best support?

    • Right: Card D shows the vice principal searched a purse, which shows schools may search anything
    • Wrong: the 6 to 3 vote shows three justices thought students keep their full rights at school
    • Overstated: Card C still requires reasonable grounds and a reasonable scope, which is a limit
    • Right: Card B drops the Fourth Amendment's warrant rule, so no limit remains