A SCOTUS Case – Editorial Assignment
Please write an editorial opinion piece to be sent to your local newspaper on a recent case that is being argued in the current term of the Supreme Court. In this opinion editorial, you will advocate for a particular decision that you think the majority of the Supreme Court justices should agree with. You will provide a constitutional analysis backing your opinion.
You will write an OpenLab post with your opinion editorial. Other students will be able to comment on your post.
Assignment: 500 words (1 page). See this helpful guide on how to write an editorial: https://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/EdWrite.htm
This assignment will be assessed using the rubric below:
| CATEGORIES | EXPERT | PROFICIENT | APPRENTICE | NOVICE |
| The introduction is interesting, clear, and leads to the thesis. | 18-20 | 17-14 | 13-11 | 10 and below |
| The thesis is stated completely in the first paragraph. | 18-20 | 17-14 | 13-11 | 10 and below |
| Thoughts are presented in a logical manner. | 18-20 | 17-14 | 13-11 | 10 and below |
| The editorial is generally organized and easy to follow. | 18-20 | 17-14 | 13-11 | 10 and below |
| Has supporting evidence with sources correctly cited. | 18-20 | 17-14 | 13-11 | 10 and below |
Deadline: June 30th
12 thoughts on “Assignment: Opinion Editorial”
Edwin Lema
Professor Satenik Margaryan
Constitutional Law CRJ 200 A120
06/23/2022
Biden v. Texas is a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Administrative Procedure Act and the constraints that federal immigration laws insist on executive policy discretion. The case involves whether the United States Department of Homeland Security dismissed the Migrant Protection Protocols program in accordance with federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. In December 2018, the United States Department of Homeland Security established the Migrant Protection Protocols. DHS has decided to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program on June 1, 2021. Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit, claiming that the program’s execution violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. The states won in a district court and the 5th Circuit. Also, Because the Department of Homeland Security lacks the capacity to detain all inadmissible noncitizens it confronts, the case involves whether federal immigration law requires the Biden administration to uphold a program that returns certain noncitizens to Mexico during their immigration proceedings.
I believe that Migrant Protection Protocols must continue to be implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, On June 1, 2021, Department of Homeland Security made the determination to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program. Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit, claiming that the decision to stop the program was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and federal immigration law. The Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals rejected the Biden administration’s argument. The district court decision that Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act and immigration law in the way it tried to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols program was advocated, and the court determined that the new memorandum had no current legal effect. Finally, The U.S. Supreme Court received an appeal from the Biden administration and still pending.
Work Cite
“Biden v. Texas.” Ballotpedia, Ballot Pedia, ballotpedia.org/Biden_v._Texas#:%7E:text=The%20issue%3A%20The%20case%20concerns,all%20the%20inadmissible%20noncitizens%20it. Accessed 24 June 2022.
Edwin Lema
Professor Satenik Margaryan
Constitutional Law CRJ 200 A120
06/23/2022
Biden v. Texas is a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Administrative Procedure Act and the constraints that federal immigration laws insist on executive policy discretion. The case involves whether the United States Department of Homeland Security dismissed the Migrant Protection Protocols program in accordance with federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. In December 2018, the United States Department of Homeland Security established the Migrant Protection Protocols. DHS has decided to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program on June 1, 2021. Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit, claiming that the program’s execution violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. The states won in a district court and the 5th Circuit. Also, Because the Department of Homeland Security lacks the capacity to detain all inadmissible noncitizens it confronts, the case involves whether federal immigration law requires the Biden administration to uphold a program that returns certain noncitizens to Mexico during their immigration proceedings. (BallotPedia 2022)
I believe that Migrant Protection Protocols must continue to be implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, On June 1, 2021, Department of Homeland Security made the determination to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program. Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit, claiming that the decision to stop the program was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and federal immigration law. The Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals rejected the Biden administration’s argument. The district court decision that Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act and immigration law in the way it tried to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols program was advocated, and the court determined that the new memorandum had no current legal effect. Finally, The U.S. Supreme Court received an appeal from the Biden administration and still pending. (Ballotpedia 2022)
Work Cite
“Biden v. Texas.” Ballotpedia, Ballot Pedia, ballotpedia.org/Biden_v._Texas#:%7E:text=The%20issue%3A%20The%20case%20concerns,all%20the%20inadmissible%20noncitizens%20it. Accessed 24 June 2022.
Denisse Velasquez Del Pozo
Professor Satenik Margaryan
CRJ 200
06/30/2022
DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
The Supreme Court of the United States has made history by ruling that women in the United States have no constitutional right to an abortion overruling both Roe V Wade (1937) and Planned Parenthood V Casey (1992). The justices who ruled in the majority are Justice Alito joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett. The chief justice also conferred. Those who dissented were Justice Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
After the first fifteen weeks of pregnancy, most abortion procedures in Mississippi were prohibited by a state law enacted in 2018. Earlier injunctions by the lower courts had thwarted the implementation of the statute. Planned Parenthood V. Casey was the basis for the injunctions, which barred states from outlawing abortion prior to fetal viability, which is usually 23 to 24 weeks after conception (Planned parenthood of southeastern Pennsylvania, et al., petitioners, V. Robert P. Casey, et al., etc.. Robert P. Casey, et al., etc., petitioners, V. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al..). On the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S laws, a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy was protected at that time.
In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled in 1973 that the fourteenth amendment’s right to discretion includes the right to abort a pregnancy. As a result of the Casey case, the Supreme Court partially reinforced this in its decision on fetal viability. Because they infringe on women’s right to due process and place an extra hardship on them, the court ruled that states that ban abortion before the fetus is considered unconstitutional (Supreme Court of the United States). Amy Coney Barret’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2020, with her reputation of being passionately opposed to abortion, made Dobbs a possible tool to challenge both Roe and Case. Abortion legislation has been proposed in more than 20 states in the event of Dobbs overturning Roe and Casey.
On June 24, 2022, a final decision was issued. The court ruled 6-3 to reverse the lower court rulings; a smaller majority of justices joined the opinion of overturning Roe and Casey. In majority of the opinion that abortion was not a constitutional right and that states have the discretion to regulate abortion. Chief justice Roberts agreed with the judgment.
Many people were surprised by the choice. The American president, Joe Biden, expressed his displeasure, Describing it as a terrible day for the judiciary and the nation and also that the lives and health of women across the country were now in jeopardy. A victory for life was celebrated by former President Trump, who called it the “largest win in a generation” by the Supreme Court. Most republicans praised the decision while the democrats opposed it. The Catholic Church and Southern Baptist were in support on the other hand the Jews and International Organizations such as UNHCR opposed the decision.
Relying on the various case laws brought forth during oral agreement as well as the constitution, the decision of the court to not accept abortion as a constitutional right was just. It does not tie down all states and it is still at their discretion to legalize abortion in various states as once before. The ruling has been said to create an independent legal framework as it lays out states’ ability to determine independent abortion laws. However, the fact that there are states that prosecute abortions causes a form of confusion the laws are not aligned. The issue of jurisdiction arises and becomes a context of ever-increasing partisanship and political division in the country.
Works Cited
“Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Et Al., Petitioners, V. Robert P. Casey, Et Al., Etc. Robert P. Casey, Et Al., Etc., Petitioners, V. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania Et Al.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833.
“Supreme Court of the United States.” SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.
Denisse,
Please copy this and make it a post, instead. I can show you how to do it on Tuesday, on ZOOM.
Hello Professor, I think I posted it as you thought me, but I am not sure.
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
The District of Columbia’s laws prohibit the possession of handguns by making this a criminal offense to carry an unregistered firearm. They also no one is allowed to carry an unlicensed handgun, though the police chief is allowed to issue one-year licenses, and that legally owned firearms must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or restrained by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a member of the D.C. Special Police requested to register a pistol for home use, but the District rejected his request. This lawsuit was filed as an effort to stop the city from enforcing the ban on handgun registration. As for the licensing requirement it forbids the possession of a firearm without a license at home. The trigger-lock requirement forbids the use of working firearms at home in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment allows the right to own firearms without having to participate in a state militia and to use those firearms for conventionally legal activities, such as home defense.
The court overturned a New York gun law on Thursday and ruled that the freedom to carry weapons extends beyond the house in its first significant Second Amendment decision in more than 10 years. The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, which overturned a D.C. gun law and determined that a person’s right to have weapons in the house is protected by the Constitution, marked the start of the court’s contemporary gun jurisprudence fourteen years earlier. This week, we spotlight cert petitions that seek the court to take into account, among other things, whether a post-Heller rule prohibiting anybody in the District of Columbia with a “propensity for violence or instability” from getting a license to carry a pistol is unconstitutionally vague.
It is my understanding that the second amendment protects a person’s right to own a gun for legal uses for example self-defense. I disagree with the fact that guns are allowed outside of homes. Guns that are registered for home should only be used at home for safety.
dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3
another-gun-case-waits-in-the-wings
Ashley, please copy this comment into a post. I will go over how to do this on Tuesday.
EDITORIAL: THE GLOBAL IMPACT OF ROE V. WADE 2022
By: Juliette Birriel
New York , N.Y – July 3rd at 3:56pm
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The Supreme Court case that held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. (https://www.law.cornell.edu)
Throughout the years Roe vs Wade 1973 law has been a big on and off change in the state of Texas as abortion has been banned then legalized then banned again which has been an extreme controversial act trending high in 2021 as woman are fighting for their rights seeking prepared parenthood for their way to be approved for an abortion to then being put on hold to looking for other states to be able to have an abortion.
Until Friday , June 24th, 2022 when the news of ROE V WADE came down hitting each state like a bomb that it had been overturned. It has definitely become a global impact trending nationwide through social media’s , protests, petitioning, etc… As an attempt to be heard as women argue that men and the government should not have a say over a woman’s body and choice and how gun laws have more rights than women themselves. Adding to that statement “Gun laws have more rights than women”. As of June 23rd,2022 The Supreme Court Of The United States. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. (https://www.supremecourt.gov). Which is why many are saying that guns have more rights then women to haves the choice of having an abortion unless the mother is in risk while in labor then to be allowed other than that it is currently illegal.
Another say is if woman aren’t allowed to have an abortion the father shouldn’t be allowed to walk out on them. You did the deed now knowing a termination cannot be done then the father must say is what is being said throughout social media. What is very unfortunate about this overturn is the agony and pain many young girls and woman who are not in the correct mental state of mind due to sexual assault, emotional abuse ,verbal abuse and perhaps physical abuse they may be experimenting having no way out having to give birth despite the danger they may be facing yet alone the child.
Another major concern in regards to ROE V. WADE is the fear of contraceptives such as birth control , Plan B , and IUDs being restricted to be dispensed by pharmacists or prescribed by doctors due to the overturn which is a fear factor as these types of contraceptives aren’t just used as a way to try to prevent pregnancy but are used as medications for other health related diagnoses for woman to help with hormonal imbalances and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome which helps regulate women’s menstrual cycle and more. So you can all see how this law being overturned globally is currently affecting women and others all over the world .
Anyone who is struggling there are safe haven baby box not in every state but check if you absolutely know you cannot take the responsibility of your baby. There are many adoption agencies and as many may know, taking the baby to the Fire Department is still a thing. Give a family the opportunity of having a child and a safe place to call home.
Sources:
https://www.law.cornell.edu
https://www.supremecourt.gov
https://shbb.org/
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-center-for-choice/texas-abortion-laws
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Jules, please copy this comment into a post. I will go over how to do this on Tuesday.
Karen Placencio
Satenik Margaryan
CRJ 200-A120
Roe v. Wade
The US is thought to have an incarnation mass super greater elasticity of demand for abortions. On Friday, June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court formally overturned Roe v. Wade, stating that the constitutional right to an abortion no longer exists and that government funding for abortions has been discontinued.
Since Roe’s passage in 1973, abortions were legal in the first two trimesters of pregnancy in the US. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mississippi case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is projected to result in over half of the states banning or severely restricting abortion. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is connected to a new Mississippi abortion law with extremely harsh restrictions, over half of the states are anticipated to abolish or severely restrict abortion. Tens of millions of individuals around the nation will be impacted by the rules, and some may have to travel across state lines to access reproductive healthcare.
Around the world there are million of women suffering because of rape, trauma in their childhood, abuse or bully. There will always be many stories but only one is true. Some of these women are scared to speak out to tell the truth or much better to escape from what they are hiring inside. In my perspective, Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be reversed since many more women will suffer as a result. Every year, thousands of sex abuse incidents take place, and those who become pregnant as a result of a rape will have to raise a child who will continuously remind them of a horrifying period in their lives that they would rather forget. It’s not fair that a woman can make a decision about her own body and that others are doing it for her. In my opinion their shoud be a little of compassion toward does woman that get pregnant from a sexual assault.
To conclude, no woman deserves to be forced to give birth to a child who would constantly serve as a reminder of a terrible experience in her life. I think Roe v. Wade should be reversed to its original state
On january 6th 2021, there was an incident that happened at the US capital in Washington DC. a group of trump supporters was outside the capitol and rioting. It was a dangerous situation because people got hurt and were sent to the hospital. They entered the capitol and started a violence. There are so many questions regarding this riot because it wasn’t just a riot once you attacked governmental properties, insulting members of the capital. A lot of things just make complete sense in hearing the worker who testified trump is an ex worker of trump. So basically Trump was aware of the situation that it’s going to happen, he could’ve stopped it but he didn’t. The ex-worker was notified that it will happen and had a conversation with the former president Donald Trump. She was told to be there and be part of the riot and gave her a role in the riot which she refused to. There are so many questions which bring up so many clues. Why the number of officers and securities were absent that day and why majority of the ones that were they didn’t really fight back claiming there were fear for their lives and scared. I understand that a job comes with some serious dealing and your life’s on the line with this job because anything can happen. During the confession trump she also claimed what happened when trump wanted to go to the capital that day which you can’t just show up to the capitol without an appointment. The former president’s security team knew the rules of the capitol which the former president wasn’t supposed to be there, during the hearing the she also claimed that the former president told his driver to drive off to the capital and he refused to do so Donald trump choked him and told him to drive off. The behavior and insulting his security team shows how bad he wants to win the election by breaking the law using force. Secondly another part of the hearing was he was also threatening mike pence to make sure he wins the election. Mike Pence said he wouldn’t do or go out his way to break the law. The election vote was counted for the state of Georgia and Biden won, the former president and his team/supporters declined him losing the election. I just wanted to point out a few things regarding the Trump hearing.