1. 2014 Supreme Court Preview Susan McHugh, Esq Social Studies/Debate Denver East High School Susan_McHugh@dpsk12.org

2. Agenda  Supreme Court Fun Facts  Previous Term Round Up  Using This Term in Your Class  Fernandez v. California  Using This Term in Your Class  Town of Greece v. Galloway  Classroom Materials

3. Current Court

4. Supreme Court 2012-2013  Number of Merit Opinions?  Number from State Courts?  Number from US Court of Appeals?  Which circuit had the highest #?  http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/final-october-term-2012-stat-pack http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/final-october-term-2012-stat-pack  Which 2 Justices had the highest agreement rate?  Which 2 Justices had the lowest agreement rate?  Of the merit opinions, how many were 9-0?  Of the merit opinions, how many were 5-4?  Of the 5-4 decisions, which justice was in the majority the most?  Who authored the most opinions (total)?  Who authored the most 9-0 decisions?  Which majority opinion author had the fewest # of days between argument and opinion?  Which Justice had the highest # of average questions?  Which Justice had the highest frequency as the first questioner?

5. Last Year’s Cases  Fisher v. University of Texas  7-1 decision (Justice Kagan recused) with no decision on UT admissions program but sent case back to the 5 th Circuit with clarified standard of review emphasizing that race can be used as a factor in university admissions, as long as the use of race is “narrowly tailored” to achieve a compelling interest.  5 th Circuit heard oral arguments on November 13, 2013. All appellate briefs are available at: http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Fisher-V- Texas.html  Florida v. Jardines  5-4 decision that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the porch of a home without a properly executed warrant is an unreasonable search violating the 4 th Amendment.

6. This Term: Fernandez v. California 4 th Amend - Consent to Search Facts: F suspected of stabbing during gang robbery. Police went to apartment without warrant and hear screams. Police knock and live-in girlfriend opened door holding a child and bloody/ fresh bruises. F was visible to officers at door and said “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.” Police arrested F for domestic violence and took him into custody. One hour later police returned to apartment and girlfriend consented to search. Police found evidence that was used to convict F of gang robbery. Issue: Is consent to search valid from co-tenant when the potential defendant previously stated that he did not consent? Two Major Precedents: United States v. Matlock (1974) 6-3 opinion: Anyone who has “common authority” (mutual use) over a home can consent to a police search of the home in the absence of the other co-tenant. Rationale = when you choose to live with someone and share space, you assume the risk that he/she might consent to a search in your absence. Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 5-3 opinion (Souter): If a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is at the door of the home and objects, then the co-tenant’s consent to search does not suffice for a reasonable search. Rationale = In customary social actions if two people share a home and at the door one invites you in while the other refuses, then you would not enter.

7. Town of Greece v Galloway 1 st Amend: Establishment Clause Facts: Starting in 1999 Town of Greece opened town board meetings with a prayer delivered over public address. Prayer-leaders often asked audience to participate by bowing heads, standing or joining prayer. From 1999 – 2007 all prayer leaders were Christian. Between 2007-2010 there were four prayers delivered by non-Christians. Majority (2/3rds) of prayers between 1999-2010 used Christian language like “Jesus”, “Christ”, “Holy Spirit”. Substance of town meetings after prayer included general town business, public forums and applications for various permits. Issue: Did the Town of Greece’s practice of opening board meetings with a prayer violate the establishment clause of the 1 st Amendment? Background presentation: http://www.oyez.org/town-of-greece/ Tests: Marsh v. Chambers (1983):Marsh Test. In light of history, no violation if prayer does not proselytize, disparage, or advance one faith over another. Lynch v. Donnelly (1984): Endorsement Test. No violation unless prayer creates perception to reasonable observer that the government is endorsing or disapproving of religion. Lee v. Weisman: (1992) Coerion Test. No violation unless government 1 )provides direct aid to establish a state church, or 2) coerces people to support/participate in religion against their will.

8. Classroom Materials  www.streetlaw.org/en/home www.streetlaw.org/en/home  www.streetlaw.org/en/topics/us_supreme_c ourt www.streetlaw.org/en/topics/us_supreme_c ourt  www.landmarkcases.org  www.oyez.org  www.scotusblog.com  www.constitutioncenter.org www.constitutioncenter.org  http://www.streetlaw.org/en/programs/Progr am/10/Supreme_Court_Summer_Institute_f or_Teachers