This discussion guide is for use with the video âThe Nature of Judicial Independence,â which features remarks and conversation with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and David F. Levi, former dean of Duke University School of Law, on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Near v. Minnesota was a groundbreaking case which ensured that prohibitions against prior restraint applied to states as well as the federal government. The Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate First Amendment Freedom of Press to the states.

In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a conflict between two constitutional rights: freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The Court struck down a gag order, finding that pre-trial media coverage does not, on its own, guarantee an unfair trial.

New York Times Company v. United States (1971) pitted First Amendment freedoms against national security interests. The case dealt with whether or not the executive branch of the United States government could request an injunction against the publication of classified material. The Supreme Court found that prior restraint carries a "heavy presumption against constitutional validity."

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore must be afforded to same-sex couples. The ruling ensured that statewide bans on same-sex marriage could not be held up as constitutional.

Does Congress have the power to set a minimum voting age? Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) asked the Supreme Court to determine whether three amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1970 were constitutional. In a 5-4 decision with multiple opinions, justices found that the federal government could set a voting age for federal elections, ban literacy tests, and allow non-state residents to vote in federal elections.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer answer questions from students about why we need a written Constitution and what it says about the Supreme Court and its rulings.
Closed captions available in multiple languages, including Spanish.

This lesson helps students learn about the judicial system through simulating a real court case involving student free speech rights. In addition to learning about how the Supreme Court operates, students will explore how the Supreme Court protects their rights, interprets the Constitution, and works with the other two branches of government.

In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court examined an attorney’s legal obligation to inform a client that a guilty plea might impact their immigration status. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court found that, under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, an attorney must advise their client if a plea may result in deportation.

In Payton v. New York (1980), the Supreme Court found that warrantless entry into a private home to make a felony arrest violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. New York state statutes could not authorize officers to illegally enter a person's home.

In the United States, a system of checks and balances exists to ensure that no branch of government becomes too powerful. In relation to the Supreme Court (the judicial branch) one of these instituted "checks" is that the executive branch, the President, appoints the Supreme Court Justices, who are in turn confirmed, or rejected, by the Senate (the legislative branch).

In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must create legislative districts that each have a substantially equal number of voters to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is known as the "one person, one vote" case. Justices struck down three apportionment plans for Alabama that would have given more weight to voters in rural areas than voters in cities.

In Rhode Island v. Innis (1980), the Supreme Court created the "functionally equivalent" standard for determining when police officers are interrogating a suspect. The Court ruled that an interrogation is not limited to direct questioning, but instead covers any actions that can be reasonably understood as coercive.

This lesson is based on an Annenberg Classroom video Habeas Corpus: The Guantanamo Cases that explores the four Supreme Court cases known as the Guantanamo cases. These cases are examples of how the Court, the president and even Congress fought to balance national security and civil liberties during the war on terror, a war that continues to this day. At the hear of each case was the constitutional right of habeas corpus, the right to have one's detention or imprisonment reviewed in court.
This lesson is aligned with the National Standards for Civics and Government and Common Core Standards. The estimated time of this lesson is two 50-minute classes.

In these five videos, judges explain separation of powers and the roles of the three branches of government as well as landmark cases related to separation of powers. Judges also review the system of checks and balances, and why it's important to respect the nation's rule of law and the jurisdiction of the courts.

Romer v. Evans (1996) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that dealt with sexual orientation and the Colorado State Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not use a constitutional amendment to abolish laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Follow Justice Sandra Day O'Connor’s journey to the highest court in the land.

In this lesson, students will explore the life of Thurgood Marshall and follow the development of his identity. Through his example, students will understand how they can develop and refine their identity in their own lives and, through this refinement, help advance freedom for themselves and others.

In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the use of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina's reapportionment plan. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts.