MOCK SUPREME COURT CASES

Simulation
Gov/Mr.Hinchliff

Directions In this simulation each student will play the role of a Supreme Court justice during conference. The court
must have a relatively balanced number of liberal and conservative justices, and at least one moderate justice.
Your court must first choose a Chief Justice who will lead the proceedings. The Chief Justice will keep track of
the Courts voting record and decisions for all cases; however, individual justices will write and turn in their own
opinions. You must use the following in your decisions along with a brief explanation of each: 1) Relevant
constitutional provisions, clauses and amendments and 2) At least TWO past Supreme Court cases as legal
precedents (stare decisis).

NOTE: If a case in Mock Supreme Court is an actual case, students may not use the real case as a
precedent.

Resources:

US Constitution - https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Oyez Supreme Court Case Search Engine - https://www.oyez.org
U.S. Laws Search Engine - https://www.usa.gov/laws-and-regulations
Executive Orders List Trump White House - http://bit.ly/2qiqPF8

Grading Students will receive individual grades based on their completed Associate or Chief Justice Case Logs and
the overall quality of their participation in the simulation. The Chief/Associate Justice Case Log must include
political ideology, judicial philosophy, the Justices vote, relevant constitutional provisions and amendments,
precedent cases, relevant federal or state laws, presidential executive orders, and rational for each case.

Mock Supreme Court Cases

1. At a school-sponsored event during school hours in which students lined the street outside their high school
during the Winter Olympics Touch Relay, eighteen-year old senior Joe Fredrick displayed a "Bong Hits 4
Jesus" banner. Fredrick hoisted the banner across the street from the school, technically off school grounds.
The principal confiscated the banner, and suspended Fredrick for violating the schools policy against the
display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Where the schools actions against Morse justified?
Did the schools action violate the students freedom of speech? [Actual case]

2. On behalf of a student, the ACLU challenged the display of the Ten Commandments in a public high school
in Giles County, Virginia. The student says that the posting of the religious text makes me feel like an
outsider because the school is promoting beliefs that I do not share. The high school principal contends that a
private citizen, who wanted the school to reflect Christian beliefs, placed the Ten Commandments in the
school, and that no public funds were spent. The school initially allowed the Ten Commandments alone, but
have since put up other historical documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled
Banner, and the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Does the schools action to display the Ten
Commandments violate the Constitution? [Actual event but fictional SCOTUS case]
3. David Riley was stopped by the police for driving with expired license plates. A legal search of his car found
handguns, and he was subsequently arrested. Two hours later, police searched his smartphone without getting
a warrant and found photo evidence of his alleged involvement in a gang shooting. Courts have long held that
the police can search people they arrest to ensure they dont have a weapon and to prevent them from
destroying evidence. Police can also search things on or within easy reach of suspects such as wallets or
address books, for evidence relating to the crime for which they were arrested. Does the warrantless search of
the smartphone in this case violate the Constitution? Should evidence from the smartphone obtained without a
warrant be excluded at trial? [Actual case]

4. Clayton Lockett was convicted of the brutal murder of a nineteen-year old woman in 1999, and sentenced to
death by lethal injection in Oklahoma. His execution was botched after the state administered a new
three-drug cocktail that failed to work after injection. With the prisoner seemingly conscious and clearly in
distress, the warden ordered a stop to the execution after 20 minutes. Lockett died of a massive heart attack 43
minutes after the drugs where initially injected. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty sued the
state of Oklahoma on the grounds that its method of capital punishment constituted cruel and unusual
punishment. The governor of Oklahoma, after a brief moratorium on lethal injections, contended that this
was an isolated incident, and executions by lethal injection in general do not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. Does Oklahoma's use of a lethal 3-drug cocktail violate the Constitution? [Actual case]

5. North Carolina passed a law known as the Religious Freedom Law that protects sincerely held religious
beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action
by state government." This law provides no state government protection against discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender identity, and allows businesses and religious private organizations to deny
LGBT individuals services if it violates their religious beliefs. The ACLU is suing the state of North Carolina
arguing that this law violates the civil rights of LGBT individuals. North Carolina argues that the religious
freedom rights of individuals, businesses and other organizations must be protected. Do businesses and private
organizations that provide services to the public have the right under the Constitution to deny LGBT
individuals service if it impinges on the religious beliefs of that business or organization? Does the North
Carolina law violate federal law and the constitutional rights of the LGBT individuals denied services?
[Actual law but fictional SCOTUS case]

6. In March 2017, President Trump issued the Executive Order, The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into
The United States that bans nationals of six predominantly Muslim countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days from the effective date of the order, unless the
individual meets criteria for waivers or exceptions. The Trump administration insists the impetus of the travel
ban is national security, that it contains no preference for religious minorities, and includes a waiver process
for those claiming undue hardship. Immigrant advocacy groups bringing suit contend that the new executive
order continues to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and violates the Constitution.
Opponents of the ban refer to statements made by administration officials as well as candidate Trump's own
words as indications of anti-Muslim bias behind the ban ("A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering
the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." ~ Donald Trump, June
2015). Does the Executive Order travel ban violate the Constitution? [Actual case currently before the U.S.
Court of Appeals]