LAW ACADEMY SUMMER ASSIGNMENT

This June, the U.S. Supreme Court will be issuing decisions in a number of cases.
These cases can be viewed here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/majorsupreme-court-cases-in-2015.html?_r=0
Your assignment is to pick ONE case, research it, and answer the following
questions:
1. What are the facts of the case? Who are the parties involved?
2. What question/issue is the U.S. Supreme Court trying to decide?
3. What law(s) are being analyzed?
4. How did the Supreme Court decide? In other words, what is the majority
opinion?
5. Did any Supreme Court Justices disagree? Why did they disagree? In other
words, what are the dissenting opinions, if any? What are the concurring
opinions, if any?
6. What do you think will be the effect of this decision?
7. How are people reacting to this decision?
Summary of Cases:
Same-Sex Marriage: Obergefell v. Hodges
In Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases, the court will decide whether the
Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
Same-sex couples can marry in three dozen states, but federal appeals courts
have been divided over whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and
recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.
In three earlier decisions, the Supreme Court has expanded the rights of gay
Americans.
Scores of friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on both sides. The Obama
administration supports the couples challenging bans on same-sex marriage.
Employment Discrimination: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
The court will decide in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Stores whether Samantha Elauf should have been required to make a

specific request for a religious accommodation to wear a hijab when applying for a
position at a childrens clothing store owned by the company.
The company declined to hire Ms. Elauf, saying her scarf clashed with the
companys dress code. It maintains that it should not have been made to guess that
she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.
Lethal Injection: Glossip v. Gross
The court will decide in Glossip v. Gross whether states may use a drug linked to
apparently botched executions to carry out death sentences.
Three death row inmates are challenging the use of the sedative midazolam as the
first step in executions. They say that even if properly administered, the drug cannot
reliably cause deep unconsciousness before the injection of other extremely painful
agents that cause death.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that a combination of chemicals then in
widespread use did not violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.
Social Media and Free Speech: Elonis v. United States
The court will decide in Elonis v. United States whether prosecutors did enough to
prove Anthony Eloniss intent when he published threatening rap lyrics on Facebook
directed at his wife.
Mr. Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who had adopted the rap persona Tone Dougie,
was sentenced to three years and eight months in prison for threatening his
estranged wife.
In 1969, the Supreme Court threw out a case against a draft protester charged
with threatening President Lyndon B. Johnson. The remark was not a true threat, the
court ruled, because it was conditional, made at a rally and greeted by laughter. But
context is harder to gauge online.
The court may decide the case on statutory grounds without reaching the First
Amendment issues.
The Confederate Flag and Free Speech: Walker v. Texas Division
The court will decide in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
whether Texas had discriminated against the view of the group that the
Confederate flag is a symbol of sacrifice, independence and Southern heritage"
when refusing to allow its license plate bearing the Confederate flag.

 Nine states let drivers choose specialty license plates featuring the Confederate
flag and honoring the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which says it seeks to celebrate
Southern heritage. But Texas refused to allow the groups plates, saying the flag was
offensive.
In 2011, not long before the motor vehicles department rejected the plates, Gov.
Rick Perry indicated he supported such a move. We dont need to be scraping old
wounds, he said. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief against the state,
while an N.A.A.C.P. spokesperson has expressed support for the state.
Religious Signs and Free Speech: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.
The court will decide in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., whether a town ordinance that
places different limits on political, ideological and directional signs violates the First
Amendment.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote an influential law review article on a central issue in the
case.
The case presented the court with an opportunity to clarify a tangled area of its
jurisprudence of free speech. But the tenor of the arguments suggested that the
justices would agree on the result but not the rationale, and would produce a
modest or fractured decision.
Health Care Subsidies: King v. Burwell
The court will decide in King v. Burwell whether tax subsidies are being provided
unlawfully in three dozen states that have decided not to run the marketplaces for
insurance coverage.
A divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington said the
Affordable Care Act does not allow the subsidies.
A ruling for the plaintiffs would not overturn the health care law completely, but
more than six million people in about three dozen states could lose their subsidies.
The effect of those cancellations would probably also lead to higher prices for
everyone in those markets.
Separation of Powers in Foreign Affairs: Zivotofsky v. Kerry
The court will decide in Zivotofsky v. Kerry whether Congress was entitled to order
the State Department to record the place of birth as Israel in the passports of
American children born in Jerusalem if their parents requested.
The case was brought by the parents of Menachem B. Zivotofsky, who was born
not long after Congress enacted the law in 2002.

 The Bush administration did not follow the Jerusalem provision, saying that it
interfered with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. The
Obama administration has followed suit.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the case did not involve a political
question beyond the federal courts power to decide and returned the case to an
appeals court. In 2013, the appeals court ruled for the executive branch, saying the
passport requirement impermissibly intruded on what it said was the presidents
exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments.
Housing Discrimination: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project
In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities
Project, the court will decide whether plaintiffs suing under the Fair Housing Act of
1968 must prove intentional discrimination or merely that the challenged practice
has produced a disparate impact.
The case was brought by a Texas group that helps mostly lower-income black
families find housing in the Dallas suburbs, which are mostly white. The families use
housing vouchers, but not all landlords accept them. Landlords receiving federal lowincome tax credits, however, are required to accept the vouchers, and a
disproportionate share of the tax credits goes to landlords in minority
neighborhoods.
Federal appeals courts have uniformly allowed suits based on disparate impact.
When the case was argued in January, Justice Antonin Scalia asked question
suggesting that he was not prepared to provide the fifth vote to do away with
disparate-impact suits.
Partisanship and Redistricting: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona
Independent Redistricting Commission
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the
court will decide whether voters had the power to strip elected lawmakers of their
authority to draw district lines.
Should the Supreme Court reject Arizonas commission, at least one other, in
California, is also likely to be in peril.