The Respondents argument was that people have a liberty interest which is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and it should extend to terminally ill patients who are mentally competent and wish to take part in doctor assisted suicide. The US District Court using the rulings in both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health determined that the law did violate the Constitution because it “places and undue burden on the exercise of [that] constitutionally protected liberty interest.” (1) The District Court went further by determining that the law also violated the requirement in the Equal Protection Clause that requires that all people “similarly situated” should be treated I the same manner. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1974, which defined “sex” discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and child birth (Jennings, 2006). Because Paula is not pregnant, she has the right under the Equal Employment Opportunity and cannot can not be treated less equally which would be disparate treatment. Management should grant the transfer, make sure Paula is aware of the chemicals in case she does get pregnant and place Sam on probation excluding him from being around Paula. If his action occurs or he continually harasses Paula, Sam should lose his job to prevent the harassment from going to court. Newcorp would face the charges and pay Paula if she wins the case in
The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that suing the cigarette manufacturers was preempted because of the 1965 federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Public Health Cigarette Act of 1969, which bans smokers and the families of smokers from suing cigarette companies on the basis of state tort laws. The Supreme Court heard the case but it divided the court into three groups. One group with four justices that made up the plurality and two that stated opinions that where both concurring and dissenting, the only thing they could agree on was that it would be difficult for the lower courts to understand it and then implement it. So ultimately they decided “that any state law that established a duty to warn consumers of health hazards in order to make the product reasonably safe was preempted by the language specifying “no requirement or prohibition” in the 1969 federal Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act.” (Anna, G.) In other words, any lawsuit after 1969 would not succeed on the grounds of any alleged failure of the cigarette companies to include any other health warnings
After analyzing the case and calling for several holdings, on June 19th of the year 2000 the Supreme Court decided that these practices were indeed a violation to the United States Constitution. In a six to three verdict, the Court stated that the pre-game prayers induced denizens to believe that the government supported these public religious events. At such conclusion, the acceptance of these actions disobeyed the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the fact that the student speech was not a private event gave the Supreme Court to further abolish its continuation. Along
Was the evidence obtained unconstitutionally? The Exclusionary Rule states that is prohibits any unconstitutionally obtained evidence at trial. The United States Supreme Court applied Exclusionary Rule to two main cases in our history, the Weeks v United States Case and the Mapp v Ohio case. The Weeks v United states case was implicated at the federal level while the Mapp v Ohio was at the state level. In the Mapp v Ohio case it was believed that Mapp may be hiding a person suspected in a bombing.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
An example of due process would be Miranda Rights, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” These rights are intended to protect the arrestees Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions (Clark, R. 2013). In most cases, after a person has been arrested emotions and adrenaline can play a huge factor in their decision making, resulting in a false statement or confession.
On March 6, 1996, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Compassion in Dying v. Washington held that preventing a competent adult from seeking physician assistance in committing suicide interfered with an individual's liberty interest and, therefore, violates an individual's substantive due process rights. Less than a month later in a similar case, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Quill v. Vacco held that the New York statute criminalizing assisted suicide violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the state has no rational or legitimate interest in preventing a mentally competent terminally ill patient in the final stage of his or her illness from taking a lethal dose of a physician-prescribed medication. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both decisions; the Washington case became known as Washington v. Glucksberg. On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on suicide is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, states are free to decide for themselves whether to allow physician-assisted suicide.
Children’s Hospital, (1923), It was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court invalidated a board established by Congress to set minimum wages for female workers in the District of Columbia. Congress in 1918 had authorized the Wage Board to ascertain and fix adequate wages for women employees in the nation’s capital. The court ruled in a 5–3 vote that the law authorizing the Wage Board infringed upon Fifth Amendment guarantees of life, liberty, and property. Employer and employee, according to the majority opinion, had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. Thus, the establishment of the Wage Board was an unjustified interference with the freedom of contract.
DANNY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Our justice system was founded on the promise that if one is accused of a criminal act, they will be treated fairly and equally by the justice system. The Constitution provides that individuals have the right to an attorney, right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to due process of law. The Constitutional amendments that apply to the situation present are the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth. Danny Defendant was and is entitled to the protections afforded under the above amendments to the Constitution. The violation of the Danny’s rights involved the government who were directly involved in the issues at hand.