Swann V. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education System Moot Court Case

In this famous court case,  Swann V. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education System, busing segregation was a major issue during this Supreme Court Case. Whites refused to let their children go on longer bus rides to go to public schools in order to integrate the public school system. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education System did not enforce that White children should be taking the school buses in order to go to different schools because they said that they should be able to go to schools that were close to their homes.

The side of Swann argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not being upheld by The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education System. The reason for this was because the Equal Protection Clause promised that all citizens would be provided equals rights promised by the United States Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also promised that their should be no discrimination in public accommodations, meaning that integrating buses will help put a stop to segregation in the public schools.

The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education System argued that the zones were created for a reason. Students go to schools based on the zones in which they live, meaning that allowing students to take longer bus rides in order to integrate the schools, would go against the school zones created by the School district. Their next legal argument, was that the schools needed to be "properly integrated". The Board of Education System said that driving these kids on longer bus rides would only hurt the idea of "properly integrating" the schools.

Both sides of this Supreme Court Case made interesting legal arguments in order to prove their points but ultimately, Swann ended up winning the Court Case. The reason for this was because the Court said that busing the White children on longer bus rides would integrate the public schools. This would help put an end to segregation in public schools.

Public Employees Gaining More First Amendment Protections

Recently, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that public employees can sue, claiming that their civil rights were violated, if and only if their employers thought that a constitutional right was in play. Many people have been saved by this court decision including one man named Jeffrey Heffernan. Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey when the local mayor was running for re-elecion. During the re-election, city officials believed that Heffernan was campaigning for a candidate who was running against the mayor which caused for a demotion. The officials believed that Heffernan went to the campaign headquarters of the mayor's opponent to display a campaign sign but in reality, Heffernan explained that he went to get a sign for his bedridden mother, not to campaign for the mayor's opponent.

Heffernan believed that the city officials had no right to do this so he decided to take his case to the local courts. The local courts argued with him and said that he had no protected speech being in the position that he was in. Heffernan knew that the local courts were wrong in telling him that he had no protected speech so he decided to take his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up overturning the rulings of the city and local courts. One Justice in particular who spoke out for the rights of Heffernan free speech was Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer said that "to any employer who punishes an employee because the employer believes the employee has engaged in conduct that the First Amendment protects-even if the employer is factually mistaken about the conduct."

This Supreme Court Case has helped guarantee public employees more civil rights and has provided them with the opportunity to speak out against their employer if need be. Others believe that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision because the law does not protect someone whose constitutional rights have not been violated. Opponents of this court case say that because Heffernan conceded that he was not exercising his First Amendment rights, he had no basis for his claim. Even though these opponents fought that against this Court case, Heffernan ended up winning the Supreme Court Case.

Brown V. Board of Education In Class Court Case

During this in-class moot Court Case, I was able to learn new information about the Brown V. Board of Education Supreme Court Case and find out why this Court Case was so important in American history. Both sides for this class presentation, presented very important key points and made very valid points while presenting their side of the argument. Ultimately, Brown ended up winning the Supreme Court Case and there were many reasons why.

One reason that Brown ended up winning the Supreme Court case was because of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 said that by law there is no discrimination in public accommodations. The side of Brown fought that schools should be open to all citizens regardless of sex/race because public accommodations should be open to all american citizens. That was one key factor that helped them win this Supreme Court Case. Another main argument that helped Brown win this court case was the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment insures that African Americans are American citizens and that the state is required to treat them in the same state with the same manor as white Americans. These two arguments are what helped the side of Brown win the Supreme Court case.

Although Brown did win the famous Supreme Court Case, the side of the Board of Education presented very good arguments. One argument in particular that I thought was very well presented was the idea that black people will be put into more harm if they are allowed to go to integrated schools with white citizens. African Americans have already suffered lynchings, so integrating black children will only put them at more of a risk. Although I do not agree with this argument, I believe that at the time I could see how the Supreme Court could have sided with this idea. Another important argument that the Board of Education made during this court case was that integrating the schools would hurt African Americans education levels because they are already so behind on the levels of education. The Board of Education said that African Americans have not been educated like the white Americans have, so integrating the schools will only put them more behind. In order to provide African Americans with equal opportunities, the Board of Education believed that keeping them in a school that was composed of mostly African Americans would keep them at an equal educational level.

Both sides of the famous Supreme court case made very valid points in their arguments but ultimately the supreme court ended up ruling with the side of Brown rather than the Board of Education. The reason for this is because the Board of Education made more of a legal argument rather than an emotional argument. This helped them win the Supreme Court Case because the Supreme Court had to make a decision based off of law rather than based off of emotions. 

Inclusive Bathrooms

Recently, it has become a heated debate discussing the idea of what bathrooms Transgenders are allowed to use. Many people believe that transgenders should be required to use the bathroom that appears on their birth certificate, while others believe that they should be able to use the bathroom of their new gender. This topic has become a very heated debate especially in the state of North Carolina.

North Carolina has recently passed a law stating that transgenders must use the bathroom that appears on their birth certificate opposed to their new gender. North Carolina's legislature believed that this law would help to protect discrimination against gay and transgenders but many people argued that this could potentially lead to an increase in sexual assault because men could dress up as women and enter designated bathrooms for women. There has been absolutely no proof that allowing transgenders to use the bathrooms that they desire will increase the rate of sexual assault.

One thing that appears very interesting to me is why people believe that allowing transgenders to use their desired bathroom would increase the rate of sexual assault. I personally believe that sexual assault will unfortunately happen regardless of the new laws that have been made. I think that providing co-ed bathroom options would be easier for transgenders because then their is no discrimination and no one will be questioning them. This topic continues to remain a heated debate because the LGBT society is continuing to fight for their rights.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

On Wednesday April 6th, 2016, I attended a presentation that educated students all about their First Amendment rights and also discussed Individual Rights in Education. The speech was hosted by Greg Lukianoff, who is the President and CEO for FIRE, an organization aimed at increasing the civil liberties of college students on their campuses. I found this presentation to be fascinating because I had never realized how many college campuses try to hinder the First Amendment rights of their students.

Mr. Lukianoff discussed many interesting topics and went into great detail when explaining events that occurred on different college campuses. One case that stuck out to me in particular was a real life event that happened at Florida Atlantic University. In this particular instance, Florida Atlantic University's newspaper was trashed after one article discussed an alleged sexual assault at a party. After the article was printed and published in the Universities local newspaper, about 1000 copies were thrown away because student's didn't want the Fraternity that hosted the party to get into any trouble. Students were more outraged by the idea that one of their favorite Frat houses could be kicked off campus rather than a girl accusing the Frat of sexually assaulting her. After the newspapers were found in dozens of trash cans around campus, the staff of the University Press filed a police report in order restock the empty newspaper bins. It has not been decided yet whether or not the University Press will be reimbursed.

What amazes me about this topic, is that the campus drew more attention to the Court Case by throwing out the newspapers and committing a crime and they don't even know it. Many times, college students forget that they have constitutional rights and it is important for the students to fight for them. This presentation made me more aware of the First Amendment rights that I am guaranteed and how many people are so uneducated about the topic.

Abercrombie Discriminating Against Muslims

Many people know that Abercrombie workers have a very distinct look to them. Abercrombie requires a very specific look for their employees and one muslim women was denied a job at the clothing store because of her headscarf. The 17 year old females name was Samantha Elauf. Elauf decided to take her issue to the Supreme Court and argued that Abercrombie denying her a job because of her headscarf was a direct violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
argued for Elauf saying that Title VII requires that employers offer accommodations to certain policies.

The district court ended up siding with Elauf. Elauf was awarded $20,000 for compensation for being rejected the job at Abercrombie. The decision ended up being overturned on appeal. The reason that this court case ended up being overturned was that Abercrombie said that they would grant religious accommodations when employees requested them. Abercrombie claimed that they had no way of knowing that the scarf was for religious accommodations. This continued to be argued for quite some time because Elauf argued that she did not know that she was required to bring up her religious values during the interview.

The court did end up ruling with Elauf and she was compensated for being denied the job at Abercrombie. This court case appears interesting to me because although Abercrombie argues that they did not know that the headpiece was being worn because of Elauf's religious values would they have still hired her even if they did know. Abercrombie requires a very distinct look for their "models" so it appears to me that they could be using this excuse as a coverup.

Plessy V. Ferguson

Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion about the Plessy V. Ferguson case of 1896 is extremely powerful. Harlan throughout his dissenting case expresses the idea that the decision of the Plessy V. Ferguson court case was unconstitutional and would sound be overturned. In his dissenting decision, Harlan voices opinion that went against the popular opinion of the common man because he wanted to reflect on the idea that this court case decision would one day be overruled.

Harlan when writing out the losing argument had no idea that 50 years later the Plessy V. Ferguson court case would be overturned. Although Harlan throughout his dissent makes interesting points that were proven to be true in the upcoming years, he had no idea that his expressions would soon be put into effect. I believe that Harlan wrote out the losing argument because he knew that the Plessy V. Ferguson court case decision was in a direct violation of the Constitution. By writing out this dissent he was able to prove to people that this court case decision would not stay in effect because it appeared to be immoral.

I believe that Harlan does make a good argument because he expresses an opinion that would soon be put into effect. The people of 1896 would have highly disagreed with Harlan because they would not have believed that the Plessy V. Ferguson court case would be overturned. The public opinion was that the courts decision could work and that "separate but equal" was a good idea. The people of 2016 would highly agree with Harlan's opinion because what he expresses throughout his dissent, does happen in history in the upcoming years.

I believe that the drastic changes mades in history are because people started to realize that the constitution does protect the rights of all American citizens. No matter what race or gender you are the constitutional laws should be upheld for all citizens. In his dissent, Harlan expresses the idea that the "separate but equal" would not work because it violated the rights of many American citizens.

Fraternity Boys Defending their Racist Remarks

Last year two brothers of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were expelled from the university while chanting racist remarks at one of the fraternity events. After this occurred, the University of Oklahoma was ranked in the top 10 list of colleges for free speech. Many people were outraged that the University expelled two of the brothers because they believed that this was a violation of First Amendment rights. After this event occurred, free speech on college campuses was an international concern that completely swept through the nation. 


Freedom of speech is a constitutional amendment that must be upheld by public universities throughout the United States. Private universities are allowed to take away the right of students to protest using freedom of speech, because they are not funded by the government. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) believes that even though private universities state that they will protect students first amendment rights, they often fail to do so. Not only do students find their First Amendment rights violated, professors often do as well. 


Although the University was greatly criticized for making this decision, I also find it very interesting, how the fraternity boys were not. Even though the University did violate the students First Amendment rights, they were screaming racist chants that I found to be extremely offensive. I do believe that students should have the right to protest and speak their minds freely, but I also believe that this is definitely an ethical issue.

State V. Mann Class Case

During class on February 18th 2016, two different groups debated over the famous court case of State V. Mann. In this court case, the State argued that Mr. Mann did not have the right to shoot his slave, Lydia when she tried to escape from him. Mr. Mann argued that he did have the right to shoot her because he was her property. The class presented this court case very well and brought up interesting points that I did not know about this famous court case.

One point in particular that I found to be interesting is that Mr. Mann won this case because slavery was legal in the state of North Carolina at the time and Lydia was considered Mr. Mann's property. At the time of this court case laves were considered to be property rather than people. This argument was presented by the defendants of Mr. Mann stating that it was destruction of his own property, rather than injuring a human being. With this being said, the court claimed that Mr. Mann violated no laws because he was destructing his own property rather than injuring a person. At the end of the presentation I found out that Mr. Mann did indeed win this court case because he did not violate any constitutional laws at the time.

I personally believe that this court case is morally wrong because slavery was not only unconstitutional but violated many ethical values. I believe that both parties presented this court case very well. Both groups knew a ton of information about the court case and were able to present their sides without any bias on the court case.

Supreme Court Justice Passes Away

Recently, U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, passed away at the age of 79. Scalia was the leading conservative voice on the Supreme Court and his death has caused a heated debate on whether or not President Obama should fill his seat in an election year. Since Scalia died during an election year many people wonder whether or not Obama should choose the replacement for Scalia or if the next presidential candidate should choose who replaces him in the Supreme Court.

Obama has taken a personal oath to replace Scalia's spot. Obama said "These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They're bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy. They're about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life." Obama personally believes that this has nothing to do with which political party the country stands for rather than the democratic country as a whole. Other political figures disagree with Obama on his personal belief. 

One politician in particular, Mitch McConnell believes that his seat should be filled after the upcoming presidential election. McConnell believes that the American people should have a say in their new Supreme Court Justice. If President Obama immediately chooses the Supreme Court Justice  the American people will not have a say in their new Justice. Another politician Reid, who represents Nevada believes that the seat should be filled right away. He believes that it is unprecedented for the seat not to be filled for almost a year. 

This debate on whether or not the Supreme Court Justice spot should be filled continues to be discussed. Since President Obama is a democratic politician, many people believe that he will fill the Supreme Court Justice with a democratic candidate, and that would go against Scala's wishes. 

The Bible: For Slavery or Against Slavery

For centuries, many people have argued over the idea whether or not the bible states whether slavery should be permitted or prohibited. Certain verses of the bible express the idea that slavery did exist in ancient times so why wouldn't it exist today. Other verses express the idea that slavery should cease to exist. The question that many people seem to debate on is whether we should interpret the bible literally or whether we should use the knowledge that we have acquired today to help us understand the bibles deeper meanings.

Another issue that many people dispute over is that many biblical figures seem to have contradicting opinions about slavery. At one point in the bible, it may appear that they support slavery but at another point it can be argued that they are against slavery. One conclusion that historians and people who study the bible have come up with, is that the bible has very contradicting views on slavery. While some areas of the bible state that slavery was accepted during the era of Christ, other areas argue that it was greatly frowned upon.

The argument that historians faced for many years was whether or not the Supreme Court could make a decision based on biblical values seeing as there were so many differing views in the different ways that the bible could be interpreted. If the Supreme Court was making decisions based on biblical values then how would they come to a "just" decision. This argument ultimately let to the Supreme Court making decisions based on the U.S Constitution rather than arguments based on biblical values.

Religion vs. Justice

Throughout time many people wonder if religious values have played a part in the decisions of Supreme Court Justices. As time has passed on many Supreme Court Justices have come and gone which means that religious values throughout the Supreme Court have changed. Certain instances where the Supreme Court has made decisions based on religious values were when topics about the provision of contraception was discussed. Two Court Cases in particular where religious values made an impact on Supreme Court decisions were Town of Greece v. Galloway and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court ruled that public prayer was appropriate before town hall meetings. The Supreme Court contained several devout Catholics on the bench when this court decision was made which caused the public to believe that the Court decision was made based on religious views. Another recent instance where religious values has made an appearance in the Supreme Court Cases was in the decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In this court case the Court ruled that small-business owners didn’t have to provide contraception coverage to employees if it meant that it would conflict with their religious beliefs. Many devoted Catholics do not believe in the use of contraceptives. The public believes that since there was many practicing Catholics on the Supreme Court bench when this decision was made, this could have played a role in their decision. After studying the use of the bible in Supreme Court decisions during class, I found this article to be very interesting. It is ok that someone’s religious views can directly impact a Supreme Court decision or is this morally wrong? Since Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion is one of our First Amendment Rights I believe that religious values should not play a factor in Supreme Court decisions.