Project-Based Government – Supreme Court Ruling Assignment – Religious Establishment

20 pts possible, see rubric

After being a part of our Freedom of Religions 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. Wall of Separation v. Dearborn, MI (school bussing)
b. American Atheists v. Port Authority of NJ (9/11 Museum).

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 5 precedent cases we studied in class to explain why you rule in favor
of whichever side you choose:
i. Engel v. Vitale
ii. Lemon v. Kurtzman
iii. Lynch v. Donnelly
iv. ACLU v. Allegheny
v. Lee v. Weisman
c. A 2-line conclusion, that clearly states the winner with a quick restatement of
why

3. Turn in a proof-read, tidy, typed, organized version that refers to the court cases in the
standardized way, for example, any of these can work:
a. Lemon (1974)
b. The Lemon case
c. In Lemon v. Kurtzman
Name ________________________ Case _______________________________
Supreme Court Ruling Rubric: 20 Points Possible
Full credit Partial Credit Little/No
Credit
Clear Says clearly at the start Says clearly at the start Doesn’t say
statement of which side is the winner. which side is the winner. clearly at the
winner start which side
At the end has a 2-line At the end has a 2-line is the winner.
5pts possible conclusion that says the conclusion that says the
winner clearly with quick winner but too brief or Doesn’t have a
restatement of why. unclear or no quick conclusion, or
restatement of why. it’s unclear
who/why
Use of Uses all 5 precedent cases; Uses all precedent cases but Less than 4
precedent it’s always clear which one; mostly clear, but precedents
cases you’re discussing. uneven. discussed.

10 pts Accurately describes the Describes events in each Description of

possible events in each precedent precedent case & in the events from
case. current case, but unevenly or current case or
could be clearer or precedents is
Accurately describes the inaccurate. unclear, or
events in the current case, missing.
and clearly compares them Compares them okay, not
to each precedent. powerfully. Comparison is
missing, or
States ruling from each Summary of precedent weak.
precedent, and has clear rulings isn’t clear or detailed,
“therefore” statement for and conclusion for the Summary of
how each precedent shows current case is okay, needs precedent ruling
the winner in the current more detail or clarity is
case. lacking/missing

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