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: 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
   • Yes: no warning was given before the statement, and Card D requires warnings before any statement
   • No: the person was not in custody and no officer started questioning, so Card C is not met
   • Yes: the statement was made in a police station, and Card B covers any statement made there
3. 2.

   Esme notes that Card A does not mention police warnings. What explains how the Court got from Card A to Card B?

   • It treated the safeguards as needed to secure Card A's privilege during custodial questioning
   • Card A requires police to give four warnings, which Card D simply repeats
   • Card B changes the privilege in Card A so that it applies to people who are charged alone
   • Card E shows the ruling rested on a 5 to 4 vote, which is why the warnings were needed

4. 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.

5. 3.

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

   • Yes: a school may punish any speech that might cause an argument among students
   • No: Card B shows students have the same speech rights at school as outside, so no rule can limit them
   • Yes: the ribbons are a protest, and Card A protects quiet, private speech alone
   • Not on that ground: Card B says fear of disturbance is not enough, and Card C requires disruption
6. 4.

   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
   • Nothing: Tinker protected armbands, so the ribbons stay protected whatever happens
   • 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
7. 5.

   Milo reads Cards B and C together. How do they work as a pair?

   • Card C protects student expression at school, and Card B sets its limit at material disruption
   • Card B protects student expression at school; Card C sets the limit at material disruption
   • Card B sets a rule for schools, and Card C sets a different rule for the streets outside
   • Card B protects students and teachers alike without limit, and Card C applies to teachers alone
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: the 7 to 2 vote shows two justices thought students have no rights at school
   • Wrong: Card A protects speech outside schools alone, so Tinker rests on another clause
   • Right: Card B says students do not shed their rights, which covers each kind of speech
   • Overstated: Card C names a limit, and Card D concerns quiet armbands, not any speech at all

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?

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

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

    • The diary search is justified, since the first search already met the grounds question
    • 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
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 replaces reasonableness with a warrant rule, so Card B no longer governs school searches
    • It splits reasonableness into two questions: grounds at the start and a scope fitted to the goal
    • It lets the official decide both questions alone, so a court may not review either one
    • It applies the first question to the student's age and the second to the rule broken
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
    • 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
    • Wrong: the 6 to 3 vote shows three justices thought students keep their full rights at school