Family Research Policy Council: Engel V. Hobby Lobby Company

Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag.

One of the first Supreme Court Cases that have happened to obtained Women’s Rights was in 1971. In 1971, there was a Supreme Court Cases called Phillips V. Martin Marietta Corporation. In of this court case Phillips tried to apply for a job of being of a preschool teacher and was denied. Phillips wasn’t the only one who applied and didn’t receive the job, since 80% of the applicants were denied because the were all women. So, once has just Phillips found out that she was denied from a job, just by her gender she took it the authorities to show them what Martin Marietta Corp. was doing.

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Facts: Earl Enmund along with a codefendant at the Florida Supreme Court, was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery as well as given the death penalty. Enmund was not present at the time of the murder, he was in the car waiting for the codefendant to return in order to escape. Under Florida law Enmund was made the aider and abettor meaning that he can be held to the same extent as the principal. Issue: Does the death sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment for someone who did not commit the murder but was the getaway driver? Reasoning:

In 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan.

Issue: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-revenue business to refute its employees ' health attention of contraception to which the workers would then be allowed based on the religious oppositions of the company 's

Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was the biggest mistake in U.S history, hands down. It is listed as the first case of the top ten worst Supreme Court decisions. Dred scotts case was the most significant because after his, no other case had ruined the reputation of the court quite as bad. This case was a huge deal, and is still an important subject to teach to students today. This case was said to be the case that started the civil war, although that may be an exaggeration.

Adam Cohen presents a very interesting topic to not only fellow historian, but to as well the average citizen. In his book he talks about the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell. Cohen is trying to inform the reader just how cruel and inhumane the United Sates was at one point. The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell was an argument of wither or not the United stated should practice sterilization of young women. He does a great job going through details as to why the United States did this.

A proposed class action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. has been filed in California federal court. Accusations that the sporting goods retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allege that the company sent text messages to consumers after they had opted out of the subscription based alert advertising program. Plaintiff, Phillip Ngiehm, states that he originally agreed to participate in the marketing program, but that he opted out in December 2015 by texting the word “stop” as instructed. According to the terms of the program, this would result in a halt of messages from the program to the subscriber – effectively removing him from the subscriber list. Dick’s acknowledged that they received the termination of his

It is first important to understand a few facts in the case. Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage of all birth control options under its insurance plan. They agreed to cover the contraception options used by the majority of the women, the contraception which prevents fertilization of the egg. Condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal, natural family planning, and hormones causing production of eggs to stop are examples of the first type of contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan.

Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.

For instance, it could be time consuming and hard to gauge which policy to promote, or advocate for in social work. There are a lot of policies that could be changed, or enforced to advance the well-being of society. For instance, policies surrounding smoking, and welfare are a few policies that I analyzed and engaged in to promote economic and social well being. I plan to learn and experience more ways in practice where I can advance the well-being of society. I also plan to continue analyzing policies that affect diverse populations, and advocating for policies that relate to emerging local, regional, and societal

Topic The purpose of this paper is provide the reader with information on the Citizens United v. FEC case in order to further educate said person on how this decision has impacted human resource departments throughout the business world. The outcome of the case has been touted as an instant landmark for businesses in the U.S. as it delved into important topics ranging from a person’s First Amendment right to free speech to whether corporate interests are crowding out legitimate individual influences. This is a relevant topic in today’s society as ethical v. economic decisions are now being viewed as corresponding responsibilities for corporations to maintain.

The present report has been prepared by myself Guadalupe Centeno on the basis of my observations carried out on March 27, 2018, at the Larson Justice Center during the Kelly Cashman VS California court case. This court case trial is being executed since the party Kelly Cashman is being charged with a DUI. The prosecutor is the attorney named Sara Beller, the defense attorney’s name is Mr. Miller, and the judge was named Otis Sterling. During this court case, two witnesses named Christine Rosas and Holy Sanchez. Christine Rosas presented her testimony and three pieces of evidence, while Holy Sanchez also presented her testimony and one piece of evidence.

Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.