Congratulations to the winners of the inaugural season of FantasySCOTUS.org. The grand prize winner was Mr. Chris Zanoni’s Honors Government class at Somerset High School in Somerset, PA. In addition to making very accurate predictions about our five cases decided this term, Mr. Zanoni’s class put together an exemplary class blog. I encourage you to read some of the blog posts about Connick v. Thompson, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, Brown v. EMA, NASA v. Nelson, and Snyder v. Phelps. This writing is at such a high level, and the analysis is superb. This could pass muster in a law school class.Mr. Zanoni’s class will be awarded the grand prize of an iPad.
In second place was Ms. Dayna Laur’s government class from Central York High School in York, PA. Ms. Laur’s class will receive a $100 Amazon.com Gift Card.
In third place was Ms. Erin Olson’s AP Language & Composition class in Sioux Rapids, IA. Ms. Olson’s class will receive a $50 Amazon.com Gift Card.
The runner-up class was Mr. Ben Ewald’s Constitutional Law class in Frisco, TX.
|1. Somerset High School||Somerset, PA||Mr. Chris Zanoni||8650||http://www.harlaninstitute.org/mrzgov3/|
|2. Central York High School||York, PA||Ms. Dayna Laur||2500||http://www.harlaninstitute.org/centrallaw/|
|3. Sioux Central High School||Sioux Rapids, IA||Ms. Erin Olson||1800||http://www.harlaninstitute.org/eolsonteacheraplc/|
|4. Frisco CTE Center||Frisco, TX||Mr. Ben Ewald||1700||http://www.harlaninstitute.org/friscocte3a/|
The Supreme Court handed down an opinion for Brown v. EMA (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) on June 27, 2011. In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding and struck down the California law that would restrict the sale of violent video games to minors.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, began by explaining that video games — like books, movies, or other forms of entertainment — communicate ideas, and therefore qualify for First Amendment protection. He disagreed with California’s assertion that violent video games, like obscenity, should not be protected by the First Amendment when directed towards children, calling the argument “unprecedented and mistaken.” Scalia then discussed several children’s stories and high school reading list favorites that include violent or gruesome scenes, from Hansel and Gretel to Dante’s Inferno, to make his point that our country has no tradition of restricting depictions of violence aimed toward children. He concludes by noting that California has not provided convincing evidence that violent games have a negative effect on children, and therefore their argument fails the strict scrutiny test. Because the law restricts too much speech and does not serve a narrow, compelling state interest, it must be struck down.
Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed that the California law was unconstitutional, calling it “impermissibly vague,” but cautioned the majority against hastily comparing new technology like video games to more familiar forms of expression like books and movies. Alito believes that the interactive nature of the games, as well as evolving technology that makes the gaming experience exceedingly realistic, should distinguish video games from other forms of media.
Justices Thomas and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions for this case. Thomas disagrees with the majority based on historical evidence that the drafters of the First Amendment would not have intended for absolute free speech rights to extend to children. Breyer would uphold the law as well, writing that California has the right to restrict minors from buying violent games and that, based on the evidence presented, they have a legitimate reason for doing so. In the spirit of new technology, Breyer became the first Supreme Court Justice to cite a YouTube video in his opinion.
This year, Harlan Institute had the honor of participating in National History Day by judging the senior division of the competition. High school students from all 50 states competed in various categories– paper, exhibit, documentary, website, performance – and shared high-level research projects with their audience, judges, and peers.
The middle school and high school students who competed on June 12 – June 16 at the University of Maryland were the state level winners, representing over half a million students nationwide who created individual or group projects this year. While topics ranged from the triumph of the Polish Solidarity movement to the legacy of Native American boarding schools, each project was tied in to this year’s theme of Debate & Diplomacy in History.
The “debate” aspect of the theme inspired many students to explore influential decisions by the Supreme Court and the controversy that surrounded them. Student projects discussed the impact of Brown v. Board of Education, the famous case that declared “separate but equal” schooling for black and white students was unconstitutional, and criticized the holding in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the Court held that 1st Amendment freedom of association allowed for the Boy Scouts organization to exclude a homosexual scoutmaster. Other students engaged with constitutional law in other ways, for example, by exploring the tension between personal privacy and national security and how it relates to the Constitution.
In the wake of sobering reports about students performing poorly on nationwide American history tests and their failing grades on civics exams, the students who showed their work at National History Day provided a refreshing counterpoint. They displayed both an eagerness to engage with history and the ability to conduct impressive research and analysis. Congratulations to all the participants for their hard work and to the finalists and winners for their exceptional presentations.
Here are the latest rankings:
Here are the latest law school rankings:
|Law School Rankings||Score|
|2||.New York University||39 Members||3870||Join|
|3||.St. Thomas (minnesota)||12 Members||3100||Join|
|5||.Louisiana State||23 Members||3010||Join|
|9||.Thomas M. Cooley||34 Members||2190||Join|
|12||.Santa Clara||18 Members||1790||Join|
|15||.Loyola – New Orleans||11 Members||1300||Join|
|16||.Seton Hall||16 Members||1290||Join|
|17||. Other Law School||122 Members||1230||Join|
|19||.Georgia State||16 Members||1140||Join|
|20||.Saint Louis||27 Members||1080||Join|
|21||.Northern Kentucky||20 Members||1070||Join|
|22||.District Of Columbia||11 Members||1060||Join|
On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting. In a 5-3 decision, the Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act, finding that it was not preempted by federal immigration laws.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Expressing his agreement with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he wrote that, while the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not permit states to impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on those who employ unauthorized aliens, the Arizona law deals with revoking the employer’s business license. Because the federal law explicitly states that licensing does not fall within the scope of the sanctions discussed, there is no conflict between federal law and the Arizona law. The Court also upheld Arizona’s mandatory use of the program E-Verify, which checks a worker’s legal status, reasoning that it does not conflict with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that makes the use of E-Verify optional to the states.
Both Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor issued dissenting opinions. At the root of both dissents is their belief that the Arizona law does impose civil sanctions on employers, despite the fact that the state chooses to label them “licensing laws” instead. Justice Breyer, also joined by Justice Ginsburg, was concerned that the vague definition of “licensing” could essentially create unlimited exceptions to the federal law. The dissenting Justices also disagreed with the majority’s finding on the use of E-Verify, arguing that because federal law makes its use optional, no state may pass a law that makes its use mandatory.
Justice Kagan did not take part in hearing or deciding this case.