Table of Contents

Title of Article and Author Amendment Provision Date of Source Page

Article Number

James Warren- “A Forced Prison 1st- Freedom of Religion Jan. 21, 2012 The New 1-4
Haircut Brings Up Questions York
About Freedom of Religion” Times

Tony Schwartz- “Students' 1st- Freedom of Press Oct. 16, 1979 The New 5-9
Publishing Off Campus Is Ruled York
Beyond School's Control” Times

Adam Liptak- “Supreme Court 2nd- Right to Bear Arms Jan. 22, 2019 The New 10-14
Will Review New York City Gun York
Law” Times

Adam Liptak- “Justices, Citing 4th- Protection Against Mar. 26, 2013 The New 15-18
Ban on Unreasonable Searches, Unreasonable Searches York
Limit Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs” and Seizures Times

Leslie Kaufman and Dan Frosch- 5th- Eminent Domain Oct. 17, 2011 The New 19-23
“Eminent Domain Fight Has a Clause York
Canadian Twist” Times

Adam Liptak- “Court Says 5th- Miranda Rights Feb. 24, 2010 The New 24-27
Miranda Rights Don’t Bar York
Requestioning” Times

Lauren del Valle- “He was 8th- Forbids Cruel and Mar. 1, 2019 CNN 28-32
sentenced to life for murder at age Unusual Punishment
17. At age 74 he's a free man”

Devin Dwyer- “Supreme Court 8th- Forbids excessive Feb. 20, 2019 ABC 33-37
unanimously rules to limit states' fines and bails News
ability to seize private property
involved in a crime”

Works Cited 38-40

 First Amendment
Freedom of Religion

(person walking around religious symbols)

The United States Government may not infringe

on a citizen’s right to practice their religion.

A Forced Prison Haircut Brings Up Questions About Freedom of Religion

1
Since members of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem venerate the Old Testament, they
probably know that the Book of Judges includes a reckless Samson telling Delilah that if his hair
were cut, his strength would disappear. Bad move.

It was probably stupid, too, for a prison guard to order the forcible shearing of the dreadlocks of
an inmate, Omar Grayson, a member of the African Hebrew group. A federal appeals court has
just ruled in favor of Mr. Grayson in a decision that includes an improbable visual reference to
Bob Marley.

The court reversed a trial court that threw out Mr. Grayson’s lawsuit, which claimed his free
exercise of religion was violated when his dreadlocks were shorn. According to the opinion,
some, but not all, African Hebrew Israelites believe they should not cut their hair.

Illinois inmates can “have any length of hair” as long as it “does not create a security risk,”
according to prison regulations. Harold Schuler, an officer at Big Muddy Correctional Center,
just south of tiny Ina, in Jefferson County, thought Mr. Grayson’s dreadlocks posed such a risk,
though he did not explain why.

When the inmate complained, the chaplain claimed that only Rastafarian inmates were entitled to
wear dreadlocks on religious grounds. An internal prison appeal was denied, based on the
chaplain’s theological analysis.

But a panel of Richard Posner, Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton of the United States Court of
Appeals — in a case in which Mr. Grayson represented himself — said the decision made no
sense, even if the judges appreciate how dreadlocks could conceal contraband. It explains why
Judge Posner, who wrote the opinion, includes a photo of Marley to underscore how “dreadlocks
can attain a formidable length and density.”

Judges do not often do this sort of thing, perhaps thinking it somehow undignified. And while the
intellectually mischievous Judge Posner once included a picture of a lion eating cake made of
horse meat, whipped cream and carrot, that was for comic purposes. The intent here is to convey
information. More important is the conclusion that dreadlocks should pass legal muster when
motivated by bona fide religious belief.

The court could not find any well-articulated rationale for a Rastafarian exception to a ban on
long hair. The state law that permits long hair unless it poses a security risk does not sound like
“Prisoners must have short hair unless they are Rastafarians,” Judge Posner, one of the most
influential federal judges outside the Supreme Court, said.

The opinion envisioned the possibility of justifiable religious discrimination inspired by security
worries. It discussed a hypothetical “ban on Thuggee, the notorious Indian cult stamped out by

2
the British, whose votaries believed they were the children of the Hindu goddess Kali and that
she had commanded them to commit mass murder — a command they followed with
enthusiasm.”

But Big Muddy lets Rastafarians wear dreadlocks and did not justify why Mr. Grayson posed a
security risk the Rastafarians did not.

The decision includes a lively discussion of heresy as it argues that a prison could not let only
members of sects that require dreadlocks to wear them. “Heretics have religious rights,” it
reminded, noting that “the founders of Christianity (Jesus Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul) were
Jewish heretics; Luther and Calvin and other founders of Protestantism were Catholic heretics.”

To be protected by the First Amendment, religious belief must be sincere but not necessarily
orthodox.

“Judge Posner is obviously correct,” Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law

professor, said. “If freedom of religion means anything, it means you can’t discriminate among
religions, and you can’t tell a religious believer that he’s wrong about what his religion requires.”

Richard Rosengarten, a religion professor at the University of Chicago, said with a smile, “It’s
great that a justice with such a thinning pate has such an un-self-conscious appreciation of
dreadlocks.”

As for the religious analysis, “What impresses me is that Posner knows something about
religion,” he said. The appellate court decision returned Mr. Grayson’s case to the lower court
for a trial.

As for the future of his dreadlocks (he is no longer in prison, the court noted), I can only offer the
counsel of Antonio Favaro, a stylist and owner of Fuga salons: Keep them clean, use a little
coconut oil, and cover them when in tricky environments like a forest, jungle or the Chicago
Transit Authority.

Paraphrase of James Warren’s “A Forced Prison Haircut Brings Up Questions About Freedom
of Religion”

3
A prison guard ordered the dreadlocks of an inmate named Omar Grayson, a member of the
African Hebrew group, to be cut even though this religion tells its followers not to cut their hair.
Grayson complained and a subsequent internal prison appeal was denied based on input from the
chaplain, who said that only Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks. The inmate filed a
lawsuit which stated that his freedom of religion had been violated, which was also thrown out.
Grayson appealed and the federal appeals court ruled in favor of him. The appellate court
returned this case back to the lower court for a trial.

Grayson believes that the prison forcing him to shear his dreadlocks violates his rights to practice
his religion without the government infringing on it. The prison argued that only Rastafarians
could wear dreadlocks, and Omar Grayson was not a member of that religious group. They also
said that Grayson’s dreadlocks were a security risk because they could potentially conceal
contraband. The panel of judges ruled that regardless of the security risks that dreadlocks could
present, if the dreadlocks are motivated by a sincere and recognized religious belief, they should
be considered legal.

This article is a reflection of the first amendment/ freedom of religion because it involves a
prisoner being ordered to cut his dreadlocks by the prison even though his religion does not
permit its followers to cut their hair. This article discussed a dispute between Omar Grayson and
the prison and the main question is whether the prison’s authority to shear the dreadlocks of a
inmate whose religious belief says otherwise is a violation of the prisoner’s freedom of religion.

4
 First Amendment
Freedom of Press

(Hands in a fist holding pencils, mics, phones, and cameras)

The United States Government may not infringe

on a citizen’s right to publish news without
restriction

5
Students' Publishing Off Campus Is Ruled Beyond School's Control

A Federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled yesterday that officials at an upstate New York high
school violated the First Amendment rights of four students by punishing them for publishing a
magazine off campus that was accused of being obscene.

In an opinion written by Chief Judge Irving R. Kaufman, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit unanimously overturned a lower court decision against the students, from
Granville Junior‐Senior High School. They had been suspended for five days after publishing a
satirical magazine called Hard Times that included articles on masturbation and prostitution.

“Our willingness to deter to the schoolmaster's expertise in administering school discipline,”

wrote Judge Kaufman, “rests, in large measure, upon the supposition that the arm of the authority
does not reach beyond the schoolhouse gate.” That power, the judge wrote, “must be cabined
within the rigorous confines of the First Amendment.”

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who has defended many publishers and journalists in First Amendment
cases, called the decision “a sweeping affirmation of the First Amendment rights of high school
students in their non scholastic lives, and as such a major statement about the right of freedom of
expression.”

Mr. Abrams said he believed that the court's decision was the first to affirm clearly the rights of
high school students off campus.

The students’ attorney, Richard Emery, staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union,
said: “This should mean, for example, that high school underground papers published off campus
are now safe. Except to the extent that kids are regulated by their parents, they now have the
same rights to express themselves outside of school as adults do.”

Ruling Avoids Obscenity Issue

Judge Kaufman's decision did not address directly the issue of whether Hard Times was obscene,
or whether the distribution of the publication on campus was protected by the First Amendment,
which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

In a separate, concurring opinion, Judge Jon O. Newman agreed that school officials had acted
improperly in punishing the off‐campus activity, but he argued that the lower court was right to
prohibit distribution of the publication on school grounds. “The language used in Hard Times is
clearly indecent for juvenile audiences by contemporary standards,” Judge Newman wrote.

The case began last November in Granville, a small rural town 60 miles north of Albany. Four
upper‐class students at the Granville Junior‐Senior High School —Donna Thomas, John

6
Tiedeman, David Jones and Richard Williams — decided to produce a sexually oriented satirical
magazine aimed at students and modeled’ after The National Lampoon.

100 Copies Sold at a Store

Most of the preparation was done at the students’ homes, and they agreed to keep the publication
off school grounds. The 100 copies were sold at a local store for 25 cents each. After the
president of the Board of Education, Beverly Tatko, expressed dismay about the publication,
school officials decided to suspend the students.

On Feb. 6, the students brought suit in the Northern District Court, but by the time Judge James
T. Foley heard their case, the students had served their suspensions. In ruling against them, he
wrote that the publication of Hard Times represented a potential threat to the discipline of the
school and that the students were therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

Vested Opposition to Controversy

Judge Kaufman took issue with that view. “Because school officials have ventured out of the
school yard and into the general community where the freedom accorded expression is at its
zenith,” he wrote, “their actions must be evaluated by the principles that bind government
officials in the public arena.”

School officials have a vested interest in suppressing controversy, the judge added, and therefore
any punishment of students for off‐campus activities should be “decreed and implemented by an
independent, impartial decision maker.”

The high school has not decided whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The appeals court remanded the case to the district court for a decision on what relief the
students are entitled to.

7
Paraphrase of Tony Schwartz’s “Students' Publishing Off Campus Is Ruled Beyond School's
Control”

A New York high school punished their students for publishing a magazine off campus that was
considered to be obscene. The students had agreed to keep the publication out of school and they
did most of the work at their houses. They sold 100 copies at a local store and passed out other
copies at school. The president of the Board of Education found out and decided to suspend them
for five days. The students went to court but the judge ruled against them. They appealed and the
appeals court for the Second Circuit overturned that decision. The appeals court passed the case
down to the district court to decide what the students recompense should be.

The president of the board of education was very concerned with the obscene topics the students
had included in the publication. The district court judge said that this magazine did not put the
school in a good light and might encourage other students to do similar things if there was no
punishment and so the students were not protected by the First Amendment. A judge of the
Second Circuit appeals court said that since the publication was off campus, the schoolmaster no
longer had the same authority over students as if they were in school. In a concurring opinion, a
judge wrote that while the school should have not punished them for the publication, the lower
court was right in that the students shouldn't have passed out the magazine on school grounds.

This article is a reflection of the First Amendment Freedom of Press because it involves students
who were punished for publishing an indecent magazine off campus. This article discussed a
dispute between the high school students and the Board of Education and the main question is
whether the school’s authority to suspend students for off campus publications a violation of the
student’s freedom of press.

8
Second paraphrase of Tony Schwartz’s “Students' Publishing Off Campus Is Ruled Beyond
School's Control”

A New York high school has punished their students for publishing a magazine off campus that
was considered to be obscene. Before even being punished, the students had agreed to keep the
publication out of school, and they did most of the work at their houses. They sold 100 copies at
a local store and passed out other copies at school. The president of the Board of Education
found out about their paper and decided to suspend them for five days. The students went to
court, but the judge ruled against them. They appealed to the Second Appeals Circuit, who
overturned the previous decision. The appeals court passed the case down to the district court to
decide what the students recompense should be.

The president of the board of education was very concerned with the obscene topics the students
had included in the publication, such as prostitution and masturbation. The district court judge
said that this magazine did not put the school in a good light and might encourage other students
to do similar things if there was no punishment and so the students were not protected by the
First Amendment. A judge of the Second Circuit appeals court said that since the publication was
off campus, the schoolmaster no longer had the same authority over students as if they were in
school. In a concurring opinion, Judge Jon O.Newman wrote that while the school should have
not punished them for the publication, the lower court was right in that the students shouldn't
have passed out the magazine on school grounds.

This article is a reflection of the First Amendment Freedom of Press because it involves students
who were punished for publishing an indecent magazine off campus. This article discussed a
dispute between the high school students and the Board of Education and the main question is
whether the school’s authority to suspend students for off campus publications a violation of the
student’s freedom of press.

9
 Second Amendment
Right to Bear Arms

(hand stopping a hand holding a gun)

The United States Government may not infringe

on a citizen's right to keep and bear weapons.

10
Supreme Court Will Review New York City Gun Law

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would review a New York City gun law that limits
residents from transporting their guns outside their homes, its first Second Amendment case in
nearly a decade and a test of the court’s approach to gun rights after the arrival of Justice Brett
M. Kavanaugh in October.

Justice Kavanaugh, who replaced the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and created a
reliable five-member conservative majority, has an expansive view of gun rights. His presence
most likely means that the Supreme Court will start exploring and perhaps expanding the scope
of the Second Amendment.

“It could be a landmark case with major implications for gun policy,” said Adam Winkler, the
author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The case could
articulate broad principles about the Second Amendment, and especially the Second Amendment
outside the home.”

Court scholars said Justice Kavanaugh’s replacement of Justice Kennedy could lead to an abrupt
lurch from the court’s previous decisions.

“This is just the first case but not likely the last case where at least four justices open the way to
a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws,” said Michael Waldman, the author of “The
Second Amendment: A Biography,” referring to a Supreme Court rule requiring four votes to
add cases to its docket.

The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allows residents with so-called
premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits. But the
ordinance forbids them to take their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting
ranges outside the city, even when they are unloaded and locked in a container separate from
ammunition.

The Supreme Court’s new majority seems ready to continue a project begun in 2008, when the
court, by a 5-to-4 vote, established an individual right to keep guns in the home for self-defense.
That decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, was both revolutionary and in its way quite
limited. Exactly what the Second Amendment protects has been in dispute ever since.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision included an important limiting
passage that was almost certainly the price of Justice Kennedy’s fifth vote. “Nothing in our
opinion,” Justice Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

11
Since the Heller decision, lower courts have overwhelmingly upheld state and local gun control
laws. The Supreme Court, in turn, has refused to hear appeals from those decisions. Justice
Kavanaugh’s arrival changed that.

Last year, dissenting from the court’s decision not to hear a Second Amendment case, Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote that the court was abdicating its duty to protect an important
constitutional right.
“As evidenced by our continued inaction in this area,” he wrote, “the Second Amendment is a
disfavored right in this court.”
“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan,” Justice
Thomas wrote. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the
law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the
ordinance passed constitutional muster under the Heller decision.
In urging the Supreme Court to hear their appeal in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol
Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the challengers said the restrictions imposed by
the New York City ordinance were unique in the nation and made no sense.

“Only New York City flatly prohibits its residents from removing their lawfully purchased and
duly registered handguns from the city limits, even to transport them (unloaded, and locked up)
to second homes at which they are constitutionally entitled to possess them, or to out-of-city
shooting ranges or competitions at which they are constitutionally entitled to hone their safe and
effective use,” the challengers’ brief said.
“That prohibition does not even make sense on its own terms,” the brief said. “It has the perverse
consequences of forcing New Yorkers to leave their handguns behind in their vacant residences
whenever they leave the city for an extended period of time.”

Lawyers for the city responded that the law was justified by public safety considerations. Before
2001, their brief said, the city offered a license that allowed owners to take their guns to shooting
ranges outside the city.

The Police Department, the brief said, “observed widespread abuses.” Firing ranges in the city
must keep detailed records, the brief said, but people with the old licenses who were found with
guns outside their homes could claim to be headed to a range outside the city that did not keep
such records.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, responding to a reporter’s question about the Supreme Court’s decision to
hear the case, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the city would vigorously defend its
law.

12
“We, every single day, are working to make this the safest big city in America,” he said. “We
need the laws that we have that protect against guns being on our streets and we will fight to
protect ourselves, that’s the bottom line.”

Mr. Waldman said he was surprised the Supreme Court agreed to hear such a minor Second
Amendment case when it has ducked some major ones.

“It’s a city ordinance, not a state law,” Mr. Waldman said. “This particular rule is unusual. It
may be the only one of its kind in the country.”

“The justices,” he said, “may see this as a way to start addressing gun rights outside the home in
a quirky and incremental manner.”

The court will hear arguments in the case in its next term, which starts in October, and may not
issue a decision until 2020. But Tuesday’s decision to hear the case sent a message about a new
era in the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in the Roberts court,” Mr. Winkler said.

13
Paraphrase of Adam Liptak’s “Supreme Court Will Review New York City Gun Law”

A New York City ordinance permits people who live there with special permits, called premises
licences, the ability to take their lawfully purchased and registered guns to shooting ranges
within the city. However, this same law prohibits residents from taking their guns anywhere else.
A few residents and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association filed a suit challenging the
legality of the city law but lost the case. They appealed but also lost that case. The Supreme
Court agreed to hear the arguments and will possibly not issue a ruling until 2020.

The people challenging this law believed that the ordinance was unusual and didn’t make any
sense. They said that banning people from transporting their guns with them to places other than
shooting ranges (even if the firearms are unloaded and locked up) poses other security risks
because residents are forced to leave their weapons alone in their homes when they travel outside
New York City. The city argued that the reason this law was put into effect was because of
public safety. Before this law, people could obtain licenses that permitted them to travel to
shooting ranges outside of NYC with their firearms. However, many other shooting ranges
outside the city kept poor records and therefore it could not always be determined where the
people were actually going with their guns and therefore could be a possible threat.

This article is a reflection of the second amendment because it involves a state law that prohibits
residents from being allowed to take their guns with them to most places. This article discussed a
dispute between the New York Rifle and Pistol Association and the city and the main question is
whether the city forbidding its people from carrying guns to places other than their homes and
shooting ranges in NYC is a violation of the resident’s right to keep and bear arms.

14
 Fourth Amendment
Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

(police with gun entering a house)

The United States Government may not conduct

unreasonable searches and seizures

15
Justices, Citing Ban on Unreasonable Searches, Limit Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the ability of the police to use drug-
sniffing dogs outside homes.

The case concerned Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever who detected the smell of marijuana
outside a Florida house used by Joelis Jardines. Based on Franky’s signal, the police obtained a
warrant to search the house, and they found a marijuana-growing operation inside.

Mr. Jardines moved to suppress the evidence, saying that using Franky to sniff around his
residence was an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme
Court agreed, and so did a majority of the United States Supreme Court.

The 5-to-4 decision in the case, Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564, featured an unusual alignment of
justices. Justice Antonin Scalia, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote the majority
decision. He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, a frequent ally, along with three of the
court’s more liberal members, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justice Scalia said the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, is particularly
concerned with the home and its immediate surroundings. Allowing a dog on a six-foot leash to
roam outside a residence, he said, was “an unlicensed physical intrusion” that was different in
kind from visits from, say, salesmen, Girl Scouts or trick-or-treaters.

“To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome),” Justice
Scalia wrote. “To spot that same visitor exploring the front porch with a metal detector, or
marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would
inspire most of us to — well, call the police.”

Justice Scalia grounded his opinion in property rights. In a concurrence, Justice Kagan, joined by
Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, said she would also have relied on a second rationale. “I
would just as happily have decided it,” she said of the case, “by looking to Jardine's privacy
interests.”

In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices
Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, said neither rationale was sufficient to convert a
visit by a man and a dog into a search.

“A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from
locations that are open to the public,” Justice Alito wrote, “and a reasonable person will not
count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog,
cannot be smelled by a human.”

16
Paraphrase of Adam Liptak’s “Justices, Citing Ban on Unreasonable Searches, Limit Use of
Drug-Sniffing Dogs”

17
A policeman allowed his drug-sniffing dog named Franky to roam outside the house of a
suspected man named Joelis Jardines. The dog recognized the smell of marijuana and based on
Franky’s response to the drugs, the police was able to acquire a search warrant. He searched the
man’s house and found that he was growing marijuana inside. Mr. Jardines filed a suit regarding
the legality of the search and the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme court agreed.

Mr. Jardines claimed that Franky sniffing around his private residence should be considered a
unreasonable search prohibited by the fourth amendment, to which the Supreme Court agreed.
They argued that based on property rights, a police allowing their narcotics detection dog to
roam around someone’s house without a warrant is an unwelcome intrusion of privacy. Having a
typical stranger showing up at your front door (such as a Girl Scout or a salesman) is much
different than finding a drug dog sniffing around your house and it is therefore reasonable to
expect privacy to your private property and your home. The judges that opposed the ruling
argued that marijuana might give off a scent that can be detected from places the general public
has a right to go to. Even though a human might not be able to smell the weed from outside of
the house, a trained drug dog might be able to.

This article is a reflection of the fourth amendment’s prohibition to unreasonable searches and
seizures because it involves a narcotics detection dog detecting the smell of marijuana around a
man’s private residence without a warrant. This article discussed a dispute between Joelis
Jardines and the police and the main question is whether using a drug dog to sniff around his
private property considered an unreasonable search prohibited by the fourth amendment.

Fifth Amendment

18
 Eminent Domain Clause

(Hand grabbing a house not for sale)

The U.S. Government has the right to take

private property for public use with just
compensation for the owner

Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist

19
A Canadian company has been threatening to confiscate private land from South Dakota to the
Gulf of Mexico, and is already suing many who have refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline
on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval.
Randy Thompson, a cattle buyer in Nebraska, was informed that if he did not grant pipeline
access to 80 of the 400 acres left to him by his mother along the Platte River, “Keystone will use
eminent domain to acquire the easement.” Sue Kelso and her large extended family in Oklahoma
were sued in the local district court by TransCanada, the pipeline company, after she and her
siblings refused to allow the pipeline to cross their pasture.

“Their land agent told us the very first day she met with us, you either take the money or they’re
going to condemn the land,” Mrs. Kelso said. By its own count, the company currently has 34
eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas and an additional 22 in South Dakota.

In addition to enraging those along the proposed pipeline’s 1,700-mile path, the tactics have
many people questioning whether a foreign company can pressure landowners without a permit
from the State Department — the agency charged with determining whether the project is in the
“national interest.” A decision is expected by year’s end on the pipeline, which would carry
crude oil from Alberta to American refineries.

A government official with knowledge of the permitting process who would address the issue
only on condition of anonymity said, “It is presumptuous for the company to take on eminent
domain cases before there is any decision made.”

Landowners have begun joining forces and challenging the company’s assumption that it can
legally seize land.“With so many unanswered questions about the safety of this project, perhaps
it’s time for the U.S. to hit the brake pedal,” Mr. Thompson wrote in testimony for a House
Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May. “And perhaps it’s time that our government
starts placing the concerns of American citizens over and above those of a foreign corporation.”

Mr. Thompson said he intends to fight to keep the pipeline, 36 inches in diameter, off his land.
Eminent domain laws generally allow for the confiscation of private property if taking it is
judged to serve a larger public good. These kinds of laws differ slightly from state to state as do
the processes by which pipelines are approved and licensed. As a result, there is both debate and
confusion over whether TransCanada has the right to use the courts to demand easements from
property owners in advance of final approval for the project.

A TransCanada spokesman, Shawn Howard, says the company does not have to wait for a
license from the State Department to begin securing land. He said the company has tried to
obtain voluntary agreements, but when that fails the company has the right to force lease
agreements upon landowners in all six states the pipeline would pass through. All of
TransCanada’s permit applications, he said, have been made through its subsidiary in Omaha,
Keystone Pipeline.

20
“We have been given the legal advice that we can do this in parallel to the process going on in
Washington,” Mr. Howard said. “If we didn’t think we had the authority or ability to do this, we
wouldn’t be doing it.”

A senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified because the permit process is
continuing, said TransCanada had not sought federal approval to invoke eminent domain. He
said the department had no authority on the issue and that it was up to state law and the courts to
determine appropriate use of eminent domain laws.

Landowners and their lawyers are pushing local courts to do just that. While it is impossible to
say how many cases are working their way through the legal system, in addition to the 56 Texas
and South Dakota cases, TransCanada acknowledges it has sent “Dear Owner” letters to dozens
of families in Nebraska.

Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit advocate for property
rights issues, said that if the project is approved, the company will be on firmer ground. As unfair
as the laws might seem, he said, the right of way of pipelines and railroads as public goods has
been well established, regardless of whether they are foreign-owned. “Property owners almost
never win these suits,” he said.

But lawyers for the landowners, particularly in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, argue that
TransCanada has not met the requirements to invoke eminent domain under those states’ laws. In
South Dakota, however, a judge has already ruled that TransCanada could use eminent domain to
secure land for a previous pipeline project.

David A. Domina, a Nebraska lawyer whose firm represents 45 landowners, said there was “no
way” that TransCanada has eminent domain powers under Nebraska law, and that the company
was “acting in bad faith.”

In East Texas, where residents are used to having cordial dealings with oil companies,
landowners said they had never seen a company behave as aggressively as has TransCanada.

Norman Ladd, a lawyer in Tyler, Tex., whose firm represents more than a dozen landowners,
said the company has low-balled on prices and threatened to use eminent domain “instead of
coming down here and saying we can work with you.”

TransCanada has taken reticent landowners before special county boards in Texas, one of the
first steps in that state’s condemnation process. The boards determine only how much
landowners should be compensated, not whether eminent domain laws apply.

With drilling and pipeline building expected to expand into more shale fields and the news over
the weekend that Kinder Morgan was buying the El Paso Corporation to expand its pipeline
network, these types of land use challenges may well increase in coming years.

21
Supporters of Keystone XL argue it will help bolster domestic energy security and spur job
growth. But many politicians, particularly in Nebraska, oppose much of the pipeline’s route
because they say it poses a danger to the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides more than a quarter of
the water for the country’s agricultural crops.

Environmental groups argue that extracting and burning the heavy crude drawn from Alberta’s
oil sands will increase greenhouse gas emissions. They also warn that if there is a spill or a leak,
it would cause severe environmental damage and be extremely hard to clean up.

In what has been interpreted as a virtual green light for the project, a State Department report in
August concluded that the pipeline would have minimum environmental impact if operated
under federal regulations.

Mr. Howard said the company has already secured legal agreements with 90 percent of the
landowners it needs in Nebraska, and that he does not expect a few unhappy landowners to slow
the process or force changes to the intended route. But TransCanada backed off and dropped its
lawsuit against Sue Kelso’s family, when it was clear that the family was not going to acquiesce.
Mr. Howard said the company decided it would be better to reroute the pipeline around the Kelso
property for “various reasons” based on convenience.

An East Texas landowner, Eleanor Fairchild, said that a TransCanada representative arrived at
her house a few days before her husband died of Alzheimer’s in 2009. At first, she considered
the $42,000 offer — later raised by $18,000 — for a 50-foot easement on her 425 acres. But she
said that the more she learned about the pipeline, the less she wanted it on her land.

“It was a hard decision whether I wanted to fight and spend all this money even though I could
lose the thing,” Ms. Fairchild said in a weary drawl. “But somebody needs to fight them. I
decided it would be me.” TransCanada’s condemnation suit against her is pending.

Paraphrase of Leslie Kaufman and Dan Frosch’s “Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian
Twist”

22
A Canadian oil company called TransCanada wants to run a 1,700 mile pipeline from South
Dakota through Texas to transport oil from Alberta to American refineries. To obtain the land
needed for this project, they would use eminent domain, granted to them by the State
Department; however, eminent domain laws slightly differ from state to state. TransCanada has
started taking the first steps to secure the land even though their project has yet to receive
approval from the federal government. Land agents for the company came to negotiate with
landowners, however, many of them disagreed to let the pipeline cross their land. Even though
the project has yet to be given the go ahead, the company has filed lawsuits against landowners
that were not willing to comply with their terms. TransCanada currently has 34 eminent domain
actions in Texas and 22 more in South Dakota. A judge in South Dakota has previously ruled
that TransCanada has the authority to use eminent domain for a preceding pipeline project.

Many of the landowners in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas believe that TransCanada, a foreign
company, has not satisfied the requirements to invoke eminent domain because the pipeline
hasn’t received final approval from the federal government. TransCanada claims that they don’t
need a license because they have been given legal advice that informs them they have that
authority. A lawyer who works with property rights stated that pipelines usually have the right
of way because they transport materials that the public uses and that it’s uncommon for property
owners to win these cases. Other supporters of this project argue that it will aid with energy
production and provide more job opportunities.Environmental groups argue that removing and
burning the crude oil will emit greenhouse gasses. If there’s an oil spill, it would contaminate
important water sources such as the Ogallala Aquifer and critically damage the environment.

This article is a reflection of the Fifth Amendment eminent domain clause because it involves
landowners disputing the rights of a private company to seize their land by eminent domain for a
project that has yet to receive federal approval from the government. This article discusses a
dispute between landowners and a pipeline company that is attempting to exercise land seizure
authority held by the government and the main question is whether TransCanada’s authority to
exercise eminent domain without having their project approved a violation of the Eminent
Domain Clause.

Fifth Amendment

23
 Miranda Rights

(Officer yelling at a man who’s refusing to speak)

Rights given to the accused citizen by the U.S.

Government that gives them the right to stay
silent and provides them with an attorney

Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning

24
WASHINGTON — The police can take a second run at questioning a suspect who has invoked
his Miranda rights, but they must wait until 14 days after the suspect has been released from
custody, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The case arose from a second attempt to question Michael B. Shatzer, a Maryland man suspected
of sexually abusing his young son. Mr. Shatzer, who was in prison for another sex crime, was
first visited by a police detective in 2003. Mr. Shatzer invoked his rights under the 1966 decision
in Miranda v. Arizona and refused to answer questions without a lawyer.

Two and a half years later, still in prison, Mr. Shatzer was approached by a different detective.
This time, Mr. Shatzer waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements about
abusing his son.

Mr. Shatzer’s lawyer moved to suppress those statements, relying on a 1981 Supreme Court
decision, Edwards v. Arizona, which said that once a suspect had asked for a lawyer under
Miranda, the authorities may not resume questioning.

The issue in Mr. Shatzer’s case, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for seven justices, was whether
that prohibition on further questioning was “eternal.”

Justice Scalia said the main reason to forbid repeated attempts at questioning was to prevent
badgering of a suspect held in custody while a crime was under investigation. He added that
voluntary confessions were “an unmitigated good” and that suspects were always free to invoke
their Miranda rights again when approached for further questioning.

Taken to an extreme, Justice Scalia added, the prohibition on further attempts at questioning
would confer a sort of immunity on suspects who had once invoked their rights — even if the
subsequent questioning concerned another crime in another jurisdiction.

The court could have answered only the question directly presented in Mr. Shatzer’s case —
whether a gap of more than two years was sufficient to allow further efforts at questioning. In a
concurrence endorsing the result but declining to adopt the majority’s reasoning, Justice John
Paul Stevens said that was the route he would have taken.

But in a move that Justice Scalia conceded was “certainly unusual,” the justices in the majority
picked a specific time period — 14 days after release from custody — after which the police
could restart their efforts.

That ruling did not dispose of the case, Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680, because Mr. Shatzer
was, in one sense, in custody throughout. The majority ruled that a prison sentence was not
custody in the relevant sense and that a return to the general prison population after questioning
amounted to a break in custody for the purposes of Miranda and Edwards.

25
Justice Clarence Thomas joined only that last part of the decision. In his concurrence, Justice
Thomas called the 14-day time limit arbitrary, saying that “0, 10 or 100 days” would have been
equally plausible. He suggested that any break in custody was enough to let attempts at
questioning resume.

Justice Scalia said that a bright-line 14-day rule provided valuable guidance to law enforcement
officials. He added that two weeks provided “plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to
his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects
of his prior custody.”

Justice Stevens, in his concurrence, was skeptical about those assertions. “The court gives no
reason for that speculation,” he wrote, adding that it “may well prove inaccurate in many
circumstances.”

The court also issued a Miranda-related decision on Tuesday. In Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175,
justices ruled that the police in Tampa, Fla., were entitled to give Miranda warnings that varied
from the formula familiar to fans of television crime dramas. The alternative warnings used in
Tampa told suspects about their right to consult a lawyer before questioning but did not in so
many words tell them that they had a right to have the lawyer present during the questioning.

26
Paraphrase of Adam Liptak’s “Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning”

A man named Michael Shatzer is suspected of sexually abusing his young son. He was in prison
for a previous sex crime when a police came to question him in 2003. Using his Miranda rights,
Shatzer refused to answer the police’s questions without a lawyer there. Two and a half years
later when he was still in prison, another official questioned Shatzer. This time, Shatzer did not
invoke his Miranda rights and he said things that implicated himself. His lawyer tried to suppress
those statements because of a previous Supreme Court ruling, Edwards v. Arizona. The Supreme
Court ruled that police can only re-question suspects who have invoked their Miranda rights 14
days after they have been released from custody.

Shatzer argued that because of Edwards v. Arizona, the officials didn’t have the authority to
continue questioning a suspect once they had invoked their Miranda rights asked for a lawyer.
Forbidding police from repeatedly questioning someone accused of a crime ensures the suspect
is not being badgered with questions while they are in custody and the crime is still being
investigated. The Justices said that for this matter, Mr. Shatzer was technically not in custody
because he had been released from questioning and returned to prison for an entirely different
crime. It was also argued that prohibiting repeated questioning would protect every suspect who
has used their Miranda rights from all questionings thereon out. The Supreme Court ruled that
suspects who have invoked their Miranda rights can only be re-questioned 14 days after they
have been released from custody. They said that two weeks gives the accused person time
consult with friends and family and adjust back to their life.

This article is a reflection of the Eighth Amendment’s Miranda rights because it involves a man
who invoked his Miranda rights the first time he was questioned, but the second time he waived
his rights and incriminated himself. This article discussed a dispute between Michael Shatzer and
the police and the main question is whether the police re-questioning him two years after he was
originally questioned and invoked his Miranda rights a violation of his Miranda rights protected
by the Fifth Amendment.

27
 Eighth Amendment
Forbids Cruel and Unusual Punishment

(Distressed man standing in front of a noose)

The United States Government may not

condemn citizens to cruel and unusual
punishment

28
He was sentenced to life for murder at age 17. At age 74 he's a free man

(CNN)- John F. Kennedy was the US President when 17-year-old Sheldry Topp killed a man and
received an automatic sentence of life without parole in a Michigan county court.

After serving more than 56 years behind bars, 74-year-old Sheldry left prison a free man on
Thursday and headed for a steak dinner with his brother.

Topp was the oldest "juvenile lifer" in Michigan before his release. Two US Supreme Court
decisions changed Topp's life.

In 2012 the Supreme Court decided that sentencing a minor to an automatic sentence of life in
prison without a chance at parole was unconstitutional and represented "cruel and unusual
punishment," even if the juvenile was convicted of murder.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled the law should be applied to prisoners retroactively, a decision
that gave Topp another chance at life in society.

On Tuesday, Topp appeared in front of a judge for the reconsideration of his sentence. The
prosecution sought to resentence Topp to life without parole.

Prosecutors argued that Topp did not act out of youthful immaturity when he fatally stabbed a
man in 1962, and said he is "irreparably corrupt," according to court documents. The Oakland
County Prosecutor did not respond to CNN's request for comment.

Topp never appealed his conviction, but was denied a commuted sentence in 1987 and 2008. He
has served much of his prison time in a facility near Lake Michigan with the minimum level of
security.

When Judge James Alexander resentenced Topp to 40-60 years in prison on Tuesday, Topp had
already served 56 years and accrued more than 10 years' worth of good behavior credits,
allowing him to be released without a parole hearing, said Chris Gautz, a spokesman for the
Michigan Department of Corrections.

"I'm really feeling good about it. I don't know how I'll feel tomorrow, but I don't think I'll feel
less good," Topp said, laughing, minutes after walking outside the prison fence.

Topp, who uses a walker after having a stroke in 2016, plans to stay with family, whom he says
has supported him throughout his prison term.

A life of violence

Topp was captured in Chicago in 1962 less than two weeks after fatally stabbing Charles Davis,
50, after Topp broke into Davis' house.

29
The teenage Topp confessed, saying he waited until dark outside a house that he thought looked
like "anybody with money lived," broke in, grabbed a kitchen knife and went to steal money
from a bedroom dresser. When Davis discovered Topp and began fighting with him, he stabbed
the man four times, then stole Davis' car and cut the phone line before fleeing to Chicago,
according to court documents.

Topp had been in and out of mental institutions since age 12, according to court documents, and
said he had sneaked out of a mental institution in Pontiac, Michigan, the day of the murder.
Records show that doctors gave him electroshock treatment and hydrotherapy, a treatment in
which a person is wrapped tightly in wet sheets.

Topp was abused by his father from a young age, including frequent beatings with an extension
cord, according to court documents. Topp's sister testified she witnessed their father beating him
with a baseball bat and records show he was put in a juvenile home after begging his mother not
to make him return to his own home.

Medical experts testified in Topp's resentencing that he was a child under duress and is not
beyond the ability to be rehabilitated.

Topp completed rehabilitation programs, took academic courses and worked various jobs during
his life in prison, court records show.

"It was something I had to do if I ever wanted to get out of jail. I had to do that. But then I started
learning a lot of things that made me think about why I did what I did and understand why I
shouldn't do them," Topp said.

Topp said toward the end of his father's life, they reached "a small understanding" and
exchanged birthday cards each year.

Juveniles in prison

The Sentencing Project, a national advocacy group, released a study around the time of the 2012
Supreme Court ruling. The group found that 47% of juveniles serving a life without parole
sentence had been physically abused and 77% of girls serving sentences said they had been
sexually abused.

In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, wrote, "Mandatory
life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its
hallmark features -- among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences."

Prosecutors can still seek no-parole life sentences under certain circumstances, but the Supreme
Court ruling said minors typically cannot be given an automatic life-without-parole prison term.

30
Twenty-nine states still allow juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole, with most cases in
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Louisiana, according to The Sentencing Project.

In Michigan, there were 359 other individuals like Topp who were serving life without parole for
a crime they committed as a minor when the Supreme Court determined that they had a right to a
resentencing.

Since then, 82 have been released on parole and 151 have been resentenced, according to Gautz.

Five people have been re-sentenced to life without parole as of January 2019, Gautz said.

31
Paraphrase of Lauren del Valle’s “He was sentenced to life for murder at age 17. At age 74 he's
a free man”

In 1962, 17 year old Sheldry Topp broke into the house of a man named Charles Davis and
fatally stabbed him. He was automatically sentenced to life in prison without parole. Topp never
appealed his conviction, but his lawyers appealed his sentence in 1987 and 2008 and were denied
both times. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a minor to life without parole was
considered cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the crime. In 2016, another ruling said
that that law would be applied to prisoners retroactively. Topp went to court for resentencing and
the judge resentenced him to 40-60 years in prison. However, he had already served 56 years in
prison and had acquired 10 years worth of good behavior credits, so he was released without a
parole hearing.

In Topp’s resentencing, the prosecutors said that he should still be sentenced to life without
parole. They argued that stabbing a man to death is not youthful immaturity and that he is corrupt
beyond help. His sister testified and said that she saw their father beating him and other records
show that he begged his mother to not force him to go home so he was put in a juvenile home.
Medical experts attested that these circumstances are what made him commit the murder against
his better judgment and that he can still be helped and rehabilitated.

This article is a reflection of the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment
because it involves minor who was sentenced to life in prison without parole. This article
discussed a dispute between Sheldry Topp and the prosecution and the main question is whether
sentencing minors to life without parole, regardless of the crime, is considered a cruel and
unusual punishment prohibited by the eighth amendment.

32
 Eighth Amendment
Forbids excessive fines and bail

(Hand holding money with a no symbol)

The United States Government may not give its

citizens excessive fines or bails

33
Supreme Court unanimously rules to limit states' ability to seize private property involved in a
crime

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court moved Wednesday to limit states’ ability to
seize private property involved in a crime, saying the forfeitures are subject to Eighth
Amendment protection against excessive fines.

Tyson Timbs, a 37-year-old recovering opioid addict from Indiana, brought the case after state
officials seized his $42,000 Land Rover following a drug conviction in 2013. A judge had
sentenced Timbs to probation and a modest $1,200 fee. Timbs’ argued the subsequent seizure of
his vehicle by Indiana was excessive and unconstitutional.

“The protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or
criminal law-enforcement authority. This safeguard, we hold, is fundamental to our scheme of
ordered liberty, with deep roots in our history and tradition,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote
in the court’s opinion.

“The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the
Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she said.

The impact of the decision could be significant, legal experts say, likely triggering action in
states nationwide to move toward limits on civil asset forfeiture.

“Instead of simply saying you were transporting heroin and the state is seizing your vehicle, a
state would now most likely have to go a little further and consider whether that seizure was
excessive or prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. That would mean a hearing or evidentiary
finding,” said Christopher Riano, a lecturer in constitutional law at Columbia University.

In the 26 states and District of Columbia that report forfeiture activity, law enforcement agencies
collected more than $254 million in funds and property in 2012 alone, according to an analysis
by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit libertarian public interest law firm.

“Increasingly, our justice system has come to rely on fines, fees and forfeitures to fund law
enforcement agencies rather than having to answer to elected officials for their budgets,” said
Scott Bullock, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice. “We are grateful that
the U.S. Supreme Court established that the U.S. Constitution secures meaningful protections for
private property and limits the government’s ability to turn law enforcement into revenue
generators.”

The decision also means Timbs will get his Land Rover back or compensation from the state for
the comparable amount.

34
“Tyson paid his debts to society,” said Timbs' attorney Wesley Hottot. “He took responsibility
for what he did. He paid fees. He is in drug treatment. He is holding down a job. He is staying
clean. Our hope and goal now is to get back his vehicle from the police so Tyson will have an
easier time getting to all the different commitments he has to stay on the straight and narrow.”
The opinion by Ginsburg, which she read aloud from the bench, was her first since undergoing
cancer surgery in December. It is also an indication that, as the court had said in the weeks
before her return to the court Tuesday, Ginsburg continued to work from home during her
recovery.

Indiana had argued that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause does not apply to so-
called “in rem” forfeitures, or action targeting property – not an individual -- solely because of
its role in criminal activity. The state argued that because Timbs used the Land Rover to buy
drugs, the vehicle was a criminal tool.

But the court, citing precedent, disagreed, saying that such seizures are “at least partially
punitive” against the individual and subject to constitutional limits.

“Taking my vehicle makes things unnecessarily difficult for a person like me, who already
struggles. To me it doesn’t make sense; if they’re trying to rehabilitate and help me help myself,
why do you want to make things harder by taking away the vehicle I need to meet with my
parole officer or go to a drug recovery program or go to work?" Timbs said in a statement after
the Supreme Court decision.

"You need a car to do all these things. Forfeiture only makes it more challenging for people in
my position to clean up and remain a contributing member of society," he said.

Civil asset forfeiture – the ability of authorities to seize private property used in a crime – has
become a lucrative revenue source for states and a tool to exact punishment, in many cases
without insomuch as a court hearing.

For decades, critics have panned the practice as “policing for profit” and an example of
unchecked government overreach.

“There can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to respect the
freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch
in a concurring opinion.

Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas, while agreeing with the conclusion in the case, offered
different reasoning. They said protection against excessive files was among the “privileges or

35
immunities of citizens of the U.S.” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and that Indiana
violated that privilege, not a “due process” right.

“Petitioner argues that the forfeiture of his vehicle is an excessive punishment. He does not argue
that the Indiana courts failed to proceed according to the law of the land… His claim has nothing
to do with any process due him,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. “I therefore decline to
apply the legal fiction of substantive due process.”

Paraphrase of Devin Dwyer’s “Supreme Court unanimously rules to limit states' ability to seize
private property involved in a crime”

36
Tyson Timbs is a 37 year old from Indiana who’s recovering from an opioid addiction. He was
convicted of dealing drugs and pleaded guilty in 2013. He was sentenced to probation and was
ordered to pay a small fine. The state of Indiana then took his $42,000 Land Rover as an act of
civil forfeiture. Timbs claimed this seizure was unconstitutional and violated the 8th
Amendment’s protection against excessive fines and his case was subsequently passed through
the appeals courts until it landed in the Supreme Court’s docket. The Supreme Court ruled in
favor of Timbs and he will either receive his Land Rover from the state or collect compensation
for the equivalent amount.

The state of Indiana claimed that forfeitures are entirely different than fines and therefore it is not
protected under the 8th Amendment. They argued that since Timbs used his Land Rover to buy
and transport drugs for the purpose of drug dealing, the vehicle was considered a criminal tool
and Timbs had to forfeit it. The Supreme court disagreed, siding with Timbs. They said that this
seizure is also an indirect form of punishment against Timbs since it makes everyday tasks
unnecessarily difficult for him. The Supreme Court also recognized that the state government
often uses fines, fees, and forfeitures as a source of income to fund programs and that was a
possible motive for the state to take his car. They said that seizing private property involved in a
crime is under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines. In a concurring
opinion written by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, they stated that protection
against excessive fines was a privilege all U.S. citizens had guaranteed by the 14th Amendment,
and that only Timbs’ privilege had been violated, not any of his “due process” rights.

This article is a reflection of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines because
it involves a man who had his car taken as an act of civil asset forfeiture because he had used it
to transport drugs. This article discussed a dispute between the state of Indiana and Tyson Timbs
and the main question is whether Indiana taking his car as a forfeiture considered an excessive
fine violated by the Eighth Amendment.

Works Cited

37
Del Valle, Lauren. "He was sentenced to life for murder at age 17. At age 74 he's a free

man." CNN, 1 Mar. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/us/michigan-longest-juvenile-lifer-

released-from-prison-trnd/index.html.

Distressed man standing in front of a noose. Vector Stock, www.vectorstock.com/royalty-

free-vector/cartoon-flat-despairing-man-wants-to-hang-himself-vector-21969872.

Dwyer, Devin. "Supreme Court unanimously rules to limit states' ability to seize private

property involved in a crime." ABC News, 20 Feb. 2019,

abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-indiana-seizure-convicts-land-rover/story?

id=61187893.

Hand holding money with a no symbol. requestreduce.org/image/begging-for-money-

clipart/481969.html#gal_post_24021_begging-for-money-clipart.png.

Hands in a fist holding pencils, mics, phones, and cameras. Journal du Cameroun, 5 Feb.

2018, www.journalducameroun.com/en/journalists-brace-celebrate-world-press-freedom-

day/.

Hand stopping a hand holding a gun. 123RF, www.123rf.com/photo_88185678_stock-

vector-stop-gun-violence-gun-control-law-illustration-.html?

fromid=cTRDRHM1dXhwTW5SYUp6TjE5emdhUT09.

Kaufman, Leslie, and Dan Frosch. "Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist." The

New York Times, 17 Oct. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-

eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html.

Lachine, Paul. Person walking around religious symbols. The Star, 10 Mar. 2013,

www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/10/freedom_of_religion_and_freedom_o

f_speech_often_in_tension.html.

38
Liptak, Adam. "Court Says Miranda Rights Don't Bar Requestioning." The New York

Times, 24 Feb. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25scotus.html.

Liptak, Adam. "Justices, Citing Ban on Unreasonable Searches, Limit Use of Drug-

Sniffing Dogs." The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2013,

www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/justices-limit-use-of-drug-sniffing-dogs.html.

Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Will Review New York City Gun Law." The New York

Times, 22 Jan. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-nyc-

license.html.

Officer yelling at a man who's refusing to speak. BrainPOP,

www.brainpop.com/socialstudies/usgovernment/mirandarights/.

Police with gun entering a house. www.google.com/search?

q=unreasonable+search+and+seizure&safe=strict&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=

0ahUKEwiz44SWquThAhUEF6wKHd2ACGAQ_AUIDygC&biw=1440&bih=821#imgr

c=-9aQcr7f3F8IJM:.

Schwartz, Tony. "Students' Publishing Off Campus Is Ruled Beyond School's Control."

The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1979, www.nytimes.com/1979/10/16/archives/students-

publishing-off-campus-is-ruled-beyond-schools-control-a.html.

Warren, James. "A Forced Prison Haircut Brings Up Questions About Freedom of

Religion." The New York Times, 21 Jan. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/us/omar-

graysons-dreadlocks-prison-a-haircut-and-freedom-of-religion.html.

Weinstein, Richard. Hand grabbing a house not for sale. The Washington Post,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/05/potential-pitfalls-of-

building-trumps-great-wall-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.c3b6ac6d35a2.

39