AP Government – Final Supreme Court Ruling Assignment

40 pts possible, see rubric

After being a part of our Affirmative Action hearings, you now must consider the culminating case you were
assigned and decide how you would rule, based on the legal precedent.
Directions:
1. Write a “Ruling” for the case you were assigned as a lawyer or judge, either:
a. Equal Opportunity in Schools v. Seattle Schools (2019) (Y Scholars)
b. Close the Gap v. Florida (2019) (Florida University biracial student)

2. Your ruling must include the following:

(NOTE: If you were a lawyer for one side of the case, you can write a ruling with either side as the
winner, you do not have to rule for your side):
a. A clear statement at the start stating which side of the case is the winner
b. Use of all 4 precedent cases we studied in class to explain why you rule in favor of whichever
side you choose:
i. Regents v. Bakke
ii. Gratz v. Bollinger
iii. Grutter v. Bollinger
iv. Parents v. Seattle School District
c. Reference to at least one Amicus Curiae brief that supports the side for whom you are ruling.
Google “merit briefs” and the name of any of our affirmative action precedents to source
amicus curiae briefs.
d. A 2-line conclusion, that clearly states the winner with a quick restatement of why
Name ________________________ Case ____________________________________
40 Points Possible Supreme Court Ruling Rubric

Full credit Partial Credit Little/No Credit

Clear Says clearly at the start Says clearly at the start Doesn’t say clearly
statement of which side is the which side is the winner. at the start which
winner winner. side is the winner.
At the end has a 2-line
10pts At the end has a 2-line conclusion that says the Doesn’t have a
possible conclusion that says the winner but too brief or conclusion, or it’s
winner clearly with unclear or no quick unclear who/why
quick restatement of restatement of why.
why.
Use of Uses all 4 precedent Uses all precedent cases Less than 4
precedent cases; it’s always clear but one; mostly clear, but precedents
cases which you’re uneven. discussed.
discussing.
AND ONE Describes events in each Description of
AMICUS Accurately describes the precedent case & in the events from current
CURIAE events in each precedent current case, but case or precedents is
BRIEF case. unevenly or could be unclear, or missing.
clearer or inaccurate.
20 pts Accurately describes the Comparison is
possible events in the current Compares them okay, missing, or weak.
case, and clearly not powerfully.
compares them to each Summary of
precedent. Summary of precedent precedent ruling is
rulings isn’t clear or lacking/missing
States ruling from each detailed, and conclusion
precedent, and has clear for the current case is Conclusion for
“therefore” statement okay, needs more detail current case is
for how each precedent or clarity lacking/missing
shows the winner in the
current case.

Makes reference to one

amicus argument.
Professional Typed, organized,
proofread, tidy.
10 pts
possible Refers to court cases in
the standard way:
Lemon (1974) and the
Lemon case and In
Sorta professional, less Unprofessional.
convincing. Needs Needs TLC.
proofreading, not as tidy.
Not typed. Doesn’t refer to
court cases in the
Refers to court case in standard way.
sorta standard way:
Lemon (1974) and the
Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon case and In
Lemon v. Kurtzman