In July 1991, while Hernandez was working as a technician for Hughes
Missile Systems, Co., he was given a drug test. Unfortunately, he
was higher than the price of unleaded gasoline and failed the drug test. Rather than being fired, he was given the
opportunity to resign and took it. Three years later, he reapplied for a job at
Hughes claiming that he had sobered up. However, Hughes refused to
hire him (you don't say?).
Hernandez filed a lawsuit against Hughes claiming that his rejection was a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A federal district
judge threw out the case. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the case should go forward.
"Although the ADA does not protect an employee or applicant who is
currently engaging in drug use," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, "it does
protect qualified individuals with a drug addiction who have been
successfully rehabilitated." The court said Hernandez should be allowed to
show that Hughes rejected his application because of his record of prior
drug addiction.
ON DECEMBER 2, 2003, THE COURT REVERSED THE
9TH CIRCUIT IN A
7-0 DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
Pauline Thomas, a heart attack survivor, worked as an elevator operator in
the Jersey City courthouse until 1995 when her job was eliminated due to
automation (I guess it took until 1995 before self-service elevator
technology reached Jersey City). Thomas applied for social security
disability benefits but was denied. The Social Security
Administration qualifies an individual as disabled "only if his physical
impairment is of such severity that he is not only unable to do his
previous work but cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful
work which exists in the national economy."
An administrative law judge affirmed the commissioner’s denial of benefits
and so did a federal district judge. However, the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled for Thomas. "A claimant’s previous work must be
substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy," ruled the
court. Since the elevator operator industry has been decimated
almost as badly as the dot-coms (I said "almost"), the court ruled that
Thomas was entitled to benefits.
ON NOVEMBER 12, 2003, THE COURT REVERSED
THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN A
UNANIMOUS DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
In 1999, Tucson police went to the home of Rodney Gant. Gant was not
home but two people were there and one was found with a crack pipe (Gant
left these people alone in his house?).
Just then, Gant came driving up in his car. He got out of the car
and then noticed the police officers. An officer searched his car
and discovered a handgun and a bag of cocaine.
At trial, Gant's attorney moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that
the police search was illegal. His motion was denied, on the ground
that the warrantless search was incident to the lawful arrest of Gant.
Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison (ouch!).
However, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the
warrantless search was illegal because Gant could not have reached
the gun or the drugs, and thus couldn’t have destroyed evidence or harmed
the officers.
ON OCTOBER 23, 2003, THE COURT PULLED A
FAST ONE AND REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE LOWER COURTS BEFORE THE CASE
WAS SCHEDULED TO BE ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT. AS A RESULT, THIS CASE
HAS BEEN SCRATCHED FROM THE CONTEST.
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
Dr. Abid Hanson was a severe asthmatic who was allergic to second hand
smoke. In December 1997, he and his family took a trip to Greece and
Egypt. They flew Olympic Airways, which allowed smoking on
international flights. On the return trip, Hanson and his family
were seated in a non-smoking section that was three rows in front of the
smoking section. Hanson's wife asked if they could be relocated but
was told to "have a seat" (Who does their customer service training -- Don
Rickles?). Hanson's wife explained her husband's condition twice
more but was told that the plane was full and that he couldn't be moved.
Tragically, Hanson died in-flight due to his exposure to second hand smoke.
Hanson's wife, Husain, filed suit in federal court in California, seeking
damages under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which allows
international air travelers to recover damages if an "accident" occurs on
board an aircraft. At a bench trial, U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer (big brother to Stephen Breyer) found that Hanson’s death was caused by
an "accident" as defined in the Warsaw Convention and awarded
the family $1.4 million in damages. A 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld Breyer's ruling.
ON FEBRUARY 24, 2004, THE COURT AFFIRMED
THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN A
6-2
DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
On July 20, 1993, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster was found dead
in a suburban Virginia park. Independent Counsels Kenneth Starr and
Robert Fiske each concluded that Foster committed suicide.
However, many people (most of whom should start taking their medication
more regularly) believe that Foster was murdered. California lawyer
Allan Favish is one of these people. In an effort to prove his case,
he requested all 150 post-mortem photos from the OIC under the Freedom of
Information Act.
The OIC complied with this request for all but 11 of the photos, claiming
that these photos are exempt from public disclosure under FOIA as "an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Favish sued for access to
the remaining photos. Eventually, the district court ruled that he
should have access to all but 4 of the photos. The 9th Circuit
affirmed this decision.
ON MARCH 30, 2004, THE COURT REVERSED
THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN A
UNANIMOUS DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
Samuel Patane was arrested on June 6, 2001. When the arresting
officer attempting to read him his Miranda rights ("You have the right to
remain silent ..."), Patane explained that he already knew his Miranda
rights because this was his third arrest. Therefore, the officer
dispensed with the Miranda warnings. During questioning, Patane
admitted that he had a gun in his house and gave the police permission to
go into his room and get it. Patane was later prosecuted for
possession of the gun.
At trial, Patane's lawyer argued that the evidence of the gun resulted
from a "coerced" confession and therefore, it should be thrown out.
Interestingly, the trial court did not even have to decide the issue
because it ruled that Patane was arrested without probable cause and
therefore, the case had to be dismissed. On appeal, the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that there was probable cause to arrest Patane but
the gun evidence had to be thrown out anyway because of the coerced
confession (talk about splitting hairs!).
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on appeal. Ironically,
the issue in this case is not whether Patane waived hearing his Miranda
rights. All suspects MUST be read their Miranda rights even if they
are people who have heard them a million times (e.g., judges, police
officers, Dennis Rodman, etc.). As a matter of law, the prosecution
can't enter his confession into evidence. The question is whether
the evidence of the gun, which resulted from the illegal confession, can
be introduced at trial.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
Davey was the recipient of a Washington State Promise Scholarship, which
was funded by the state of Washington. In the fall of 1999, Davey
enrolled at Northwest College, a private Christian school in Kirkland,
Washington. He intended to double major in business administration
and pastoral ministries (an interesting combination to say the least).
However, Northwest College officials informed him that he would have to
forfeit his state-funded scholarship to do so. Students receiving
the Promise Scholarship could not use the money to obtain a degree in
theology, if the program is taught from a perspective intended to induce a
faith or belief.
Davey immediately though, "What would Jesus do?" So in February
2000, he filed suit against Washington's Higher Education Coordinating
Board, claiming it violated his free exercise, free expression, free
association and equal protection rights under the U.S. and state
constitutions. In August 2000, a federal district court ruled
against Davey. “While a citizen may not be unduly prohibited from
practicing his religion, he may not demand that the government pay for
those religious pursuits.”
However, on appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed this decision. The
court ruled that Washington’s policy lacked neutrality. The Promise
Scholarship is obtainable by any student who meets the criteria, except
those students who wish to study theology. “As this classification
facially discriminates on the basis of religion, it must survive strict
scrutiny,” Judge Pamela Ann Rymer wrote. “We are not persuaded that it
does."
ON FEBRUARY 25, 2004, THE COURT REVERSED
THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN A
7-2 DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
On March 12, 2003, Delma Banks had his last meal and was prepared for
execution by lethal injection. However, just 10 minutes before he
was scheduled to be strapped onto the gurney, he received a stay from the
U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1980, Banks, a black man, was sentenced to death for the murder of a
16-year-old white male. Banks had no prior criminal record and
maintained his innocence. The two key state witnesses against Banks
recanted their trial testimony in 1999. The first said that he had
testified out of fear of being prosecuted on drug charges. The
second witness, admitted that he was a paid police informant in the case
and that he had lied at the trial. Furthermore, Banks was tried by
an all-white jury after the prosecutor dismissed the only four
African-Americans in the jury pool. Sounds like a fair trial, right?
Well, a federal district judge didn't think so either. He ordered
the state to reduce the sentence or to give Banks a new sentencing
hearing. However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Banks'
death sentence on appeal. It ruled that although mistakes were made,
none of them individually was serious enough to overturn the jury's
verdict.
ON FEBRUARY 24, 2004, THE COURT REVERSED
THE 5TH CIRCUIT IN A
7-2 DECISION.
POINTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR THIS CASE BUT NEVER FEAR BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER CASES FOR WHICH YOU CAN EARN POINTS.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
Maria Altmann is the sole surviving heir of Ferdinand Bloch, a Jewish
Czech sugar magnate who lived in Austria until the Nazi invasion in 1938.
The Nazis seized six paintings from Bloch, currently valued at $135
million. In 2000, Altmann filed suit against Austria claiming
ownership of the paintings.
Austria immediately moved to have the case thrown out. As a general
rule, U.S. citizens may not sue foreign governments in U.S. However,
there is an exception when the case involves an alleged taking of property
in violation of international law. Two lower courts have ruled that
this case falls within that exception.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #10: RASUL v. BUSH / AL ODAH v. U.S.
(Detention of Enemy Combatants)
Hearing Date:
TBD
In the aftermath of 9-11, the United States and its allies captured many
foreigners whom they thought were involved in the attacks and brought them
to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, as "enemy combatants."
Families of twelve Kuwaitis, two Britons and two Australians filed suit in
federal court in Washington, D.C., claiming these men’s rights, among them
the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process, were being denied.
In response, the government argued that because these men are aliens being
held outside the "ultimate sovereignty" of the United States, they have no
access to our courts to challenge their detention. The U.S. controls
Guantanamo Bay pursuant to a 1903 Lease Agreement giving the U.S.
"complete jurisdiction and control over and within [Guantanamo]."
Nevertheless, Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty of the area. (No, I
have no idea what this means either) Two lower courts have sided
with the government, concluding that they did not have the jurisdiction to
grant habeas corpus requests for aliens held outside the sovereign
territory of the United States.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #11: CHENEY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(Federal Advisory Committee Act)
Hearing Date:
TBD
In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney headed the National Energy Policy
Development Group. The Sierra Club, an environmental group, and
Judicial Watch, a conservative public-interest group, sued Cheney,
contending that as head of the energy task force, he had violated the
Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, which generally requires open
meetings whenever outsiders offer advice to high government officials.
The lawsuits alleged that Cheney and the other Bush advisers met behind
closed doors with corporate officials and lobbyists from the oil, gas,
coal and nuclear industries in devising the energy policy. (You
don't say!)
Bush and Cheney have rejected the charge and say only federal officials,
not outsiders, participated in the task force on energy policy. The
advisory committee act is triggered only if outside advisers are involved.
However, two lower courts have ruled that Cheney must turn over the
documents to the lawyers for the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch to allow
them an opportunity to prove their case. "Tricky" Dick Cheney
refused and brought an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #12: ELK GROVE v. NEWDOW
(Pledge of Allegiance Case)
Hearing Date:
TBD
Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a daughter who attends public elementary
school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. Each
day, in accordance with state law, the teachers lead students in a
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. At no point was any student,
including Newdow's daughter, forced to recite the Pledge.
Nevertheless, Newdow sued the school district claiming that it is
unconstitutional for a state employee to lead students in an exercise
which is fundamentally religious in nature because that represents the
state endorsing some particular view (the pledge contains the phrase "one
nation under God").
Although a lower court dismissed the lawsuit, the 9th Circuit ruled that
Newdow had standing to sue and that the practice of teachers leading
students in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violated the
entanglement clause of the First Amendment.
Scalia has recused himself from the
case
Vote Spread (0-8) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #13: HIIBEL v. 6TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA
(Fourth Amendment; Identification in Police Stops)
Hearing Date:
TBD
On the night of May 21, 2000, a Sheriff’s Deputy approached a man standing
next to a parked car. The officer was responding to a call from a
witness who said he had seen a man hit a woman in a car driving down the
same road. The officer approached the man, Larry Hiibel, and asked
him his name. Hiibel, believing he had not broken any law, refused
to give the officer his name. After several more requests for
information, Hiibel was arrested and charged with resisting an officer.
The justice of the peace convicted Hiibel and fined him $320.
Hiibel, apparently having nothing better to do with the next two years of
his life, appealed the conviction. A Nevada appellate court and the
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #14: PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS
(Sexual harassment)
Hearing Date:
TBD
Nancy Drew Suders had just started working as a dispatcher for the
Pennsylvania state police in March 1998 when the harassment started from
her three male supervisors. Just five months later, Suders reached
her breaking point when her supervisors falsely accused her of theft and
detained her -- an incident in which she was handcuffed, photographed and
questioned in an interrogation room. That same day, she resigned.
She then sued the state police and the supervisors in federal court for
sexual harassment. The district judge dismissed the case, claiming
that Suders' claim was barred because she failed to avail herself of her
employer's internal procedures to deal with harassment complaints.
However, the 3rd Circuit court reversed the dismissal, ruling that the
district court had failed to consider whether Suders' harassment
constituted constructive discharge.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
CASE #15: NELSON v. CAMPBELL
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
Hearing Date:
TBD
David Larry Nelson was convicted for the murders of two men and has been
sentenced to death by lethal injection. However, Nelson claims that
this method of death will constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" in his
case. Due to years of intravenous drug use, it may be necessary to
Alabama officials to cut through muscle and fat in his arm in order to
reach a vein. Nelson claims that this is cruel and unusual
punishment.
Two days before his scheduled execution on October 9, 2003, a district
court denied his petition, claiming that Nelson had previously filed a
federal habeas petition and that a second petition was impermissible.
The next day, the 11th Circuit panel heard his case and again, refused to
grant relief for Nelson. Just two hours before he was to be
executed, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution.
Vote Spread (1-9) +
Click here for more information from the Medill School of Journalism.
