Access the e-book Magstadt, T. M. (2017). Understanding politics: Ideas, institutions, and issues. Australia: Cengage Learning.
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 11, 12, 13
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source
Initial Post Instructions
Using the Supreme Court’s website, research one case that deals with a contentious issue of your choice. (These issues can be racial discrimination, right to bear arms, same-sex marriage, hate speech, suicide, etc.) After finding a case, describe the Constitutional issue at the heart of the case. Summarize the points, the opinion, and at least one dissent used to come up with their conclusions. Did you agree with the majority opinion or the dissent?
Refer to the attachment to assist in writing this paper
How to find a US Supreme Court Case
1. Go go https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
opinions.aspx
2. Scroll to the “Opinions of the Court” tab on the
left side.
3. Scroll down passed the information on opinions
(see next page).
4. There are boxes with years. Click on any year to
see the opinions for that year.
5. The Court’s opinion will be in another window as
a PDF.
6. On the PDF, see the opinion and dissent.
Opinions of the Court – 2018
“Slip” opinions are the first version of the Court’s opinions posted on this website. A “slip”
opinion consists of the majority or principal opinion, any concurring or dissenting opinions
written by the Justices, and a prefatory syllabus prepared by the Reporter’s Office that
summarizes the decision. The slip opinions collected here are those issued during October
Term 2018 (October 1, 2018, through October 6, 2019). These opinions are posted on the
website within minutes after the opinions are issued and will remain posted until the opinions
for the entire Term are published in the bound volumes of the United States Reports. For
further information, see Column Header Definitions and Information About Opinions.
Cauttiion:: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced
by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and, subsequently, by the final
version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print
and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. However, where the
electronic version has been designated “revised,” the electronic version controls to the extent
that it differs from the print version with regard to the noted revision. In case of discrepancies
between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion–i.e., the preliminary print
or bound volume version–the later version controls.
Term Year: 2018 Expand All | Collapse All
November
R– Datte Docckkeett Name Revviissed JJ.. Ptt..
2 11/27/18 17-71 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States
Fish and Wildlife Serv.
R 586/1
1 11/06/18 17-587 Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido G 586/1
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 See Earlier Opinions
−
Click on any of these tabs
Click the blue hyperlink for the case to be
displayed.
Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 1
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 16–992. Decided June 26, 2017
PER CURIAM.
As this Court explained in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576
U. S. ___ (2015), the Constitution entitles same-sex couples
to civil marriage “on the same terms and conditions
as opposite-sex couples.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). In the
decision below, the Arkansas Supreme Court considered
the effect of that holding on the State’s rules governing the
issuance of birth certificates. When a married woman
gives birth in Arkansas, state law generally requires the
name of the mother’s male spouse to appear on the child’s
birth certificate—regardless of his biological relationship
to the child. According to the court below, however, Arkansas
need not extend that rule to similarly situated
same-sex couples: The State need not, in other words,
issue birth certificates including the female spouses of
women who give birth in the State. Because that differential
treatment infringes Obergefell’s commitment to provide
same-sex couples “the constellation of benefits that
the States have linked to marriage,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 17),
we reverse the state court’s judgment.
The petitioners here are two married same-sex couples
who conceived children through anonymous sperm donation.
Leigh and Jana Jacobs were married in Iowa in
2010, and Terrah and Marisa Pavan were married in New
Hampshire in 2011. Leigh and Terrah each gave birth to
a child in Arkansas in 2015. When it came time to secure
birth certificates for the newborns, each couple filled out
paperwork listing both spouses as parents—Leigh and
Jana in one case, Terrah and Marisa in the other. Both
The first decision is always the opinion of the majority of the
Court.
Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 1
GORSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 16–992. Decided June 26, 2017
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and
JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Summary reversal is usually reserved for cases where
“the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute,
and the decision below is clearly in error.” Schweiker v.
Hansen, 450 U. S. 785, 791 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Respectfully, I don’t believe this case meets that
standard.
To be sure, Obergefell addressed the question whether a
State must recognize same-sex marriages. But nothing in
Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question whether
§20–18–401 of the Arkansas Code, or a state supreme
court decision upholding it, must go. The statute in question
establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the
biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth
certificate. Before the state supreme court, the State
argued that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth
registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Obergefell—
like ensuring government officials can identify public
health trends and helping individuals determine their
biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic
disorders. In an opinion that did not in any way seek to
defy but rather earnestly engage Obergefell, the state
supreme court agreed. And it is very hard to see what is
wrong with this conclusion for, just as the state court
recognized, nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth
registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
