Bill Of Rights Project

Olivia Jahn

First Amendment: Freedom of Speech

Court Case: Susan B. Anthony List Vs. Driehaus

Nonprofit, pro-life organization, Susan B. Anthony List(SBA) decided they were going to put up a billboard of Congressman Steven Driehaus. In result of Susan B. Anthony displaying Driehaus on their billboard, it displayed an image that Driehaus is in favor of the Affordable Care Act, subsequently supporting tax payer funded abortion. The owner of the billboard would not permit it being put up, and Driehaus filed a complaint saying that the SBA was “making false statements about his voting record.” In results of the acts, Driehaus was not reelected in the 2010 elections. The Susan B. Anthony List took their case to the courts stating their first amendment had been infringed upon by the state of Ohio. The courts ruled in favor of Ohio because by the Susan B. Anthony List promoting Driehaus they affect his political career. They did not have consent form Driehaus to promote his figure. When it comes to the government, people’s rights are infringed upon in efforts to keep the majority safe. This case effects American’s by being persuaded into what they think politicians promote and who they want to vote for.

This picture shows that by Susan B. Anthony promoting Driehaus, he supported abortion. This is the people's view on the outcome of the citation.

"Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 10, 2015. <>

Second Amendment: The Right to a Well Armed Militia

Court Case: D.C. Mom Takes Gun Case To Supreme Court

Possessing a gun is as easy as filling out paperwork, receiving a background check, and taking a firearms safety class. Amanda Welling brought her Glock Pistol to her new home when moving from Texas to Southeast D.C., arguing it was to keep her new infant safe. The gun was no longer registered since the federal licenced vender went out of business. This was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals in December 2012. Because there hadn’t been a case similar to hers the court dismissed it and ended up allowing Welling to keep her firearm. This case's impact left behind now requires the Mayor to appoint a second federal licensed vendor incase one of them runs out of business.

This picture represents the gun that Welling was not allowed to bring to her new home in Southeast D.C.

Riddell, Kelly. "D.C. Mom Takes Gun Case to Supreme Court." Washington Times. The Washington Times, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Fourth Amendment: Protection From Unreasonable Searches

Court Case: Riley Vs. California

Members of the Lincoln Park gang engaged in shooting a rival gang member. David Riley was arrested for having a suspended licence. Police were required to search and take the car into possession. While searching the car police found two guns. They arrested Riley and went through his cell phone to see if he had any affiliation with the gang. They found gang signs and eventually liked him to the shootings. David Riley’s case went to the Supreme Court regarding whether or not going through his cell phone was a violation of the fourth amendment. The court ruled that it was an invasion of his right to protection from unreasonable searches. The officers are only allowed to search what may cause harm to themselves or others. A cell phone does not have the capability to harm the officers. If they were wanting to take the phone away from Riley, they simply had to place it in a bag marked for evidence. Since it was not necessary for the officers to go through David Riley’s phone, the courts voted in favor of Riley. As a result of the Riley vs. California case, the courts are now debating when it is acceptable to search one’s phone and if so what the limits are to be.

This picture represents the court case of the police taking Riley's phone and searching through his photo's and videos.

"Riley v. California." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 10, 2015. <>

Fifth Amendment: Right To Not Incriminate Oneself

Court Case: Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County

In the state of Nevada, Larry Hiibel refused to give an officer his name. Nevada has a law stating persons are required to give their name when asked by an officer. Hiibel believed this was a violation of his fifth amendment, the right to not incriminate oneself, and would not comply. This is an issue in general because when granted your drivers licence and insurance you sign your name stating you will comply with law enforcement and give them your name. The court ruled that it was not a violation to Hiibel’s fifth amendment. The officer was investigating an assault and was asking for additional information from a bystander, Hiibel, which required him to state his name. This case challenged the Supreme court by asking them if one’s rights overpowered the government’s. Since everyone has to sign off their name when getting their licence they are required to comply. This results in Hiibel’s amendments not being taken advantage of.

This picture represents the court case of Hiibel refusing to state himself in the state of Nevada.

"Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 10, 2015. <>

Sixth Amendment: Rights to a proper trial

Court Case: Iowa Vs. Tovar

The sixth amendment states all have the right to a proper trail. Felipe Tovar’s case regarding the sixth amendment worked its way up to the Supreme Court. Tovar was convicted three drunk driving tickets in four years. Each time the state of Iowa increased the sentencing. After his third time of being convicted Tovar was looking up to five years in prison. Tovar stated that during his first case the judge never informed him “of the consequences of entering a guilty plea without an attorney.” The Supreme Court decided that Tovar’s sixth amendment was not being infringed upon. The court decided the judge explained his rights well enough and according to the article, Tovar’s decision was “knowing.” The impact to the American society based upon this case left followers on the edge of their seats. Everyone has an idea of that their rights are, but this case helps civilians understand how important it is to be aware of your rights.

Tovar talking to reporters about his attention called court case.

"Iowa v. Tovar." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 10, 2015. <>

Seventh Amendment: Right to a jury trial in civil cases

Court Case: Gasperini Vs. Center for Humanities Inc.

The Center for Humanities Incorporation borrowed transparencies from William Gasperini. After the center lost the transparencies Gasperini took them to court. The courts offered him a default of $1,500 per transparency. The Center for Humanities then took Gasperini to court saying they paid him an immoderate amount. New York requires that a judge's work be looked over and sized by verdict. The seventh amendment states that persons are awarded the right to a jury trial in civil cases. This was taken to the Supreme Court and decided that New York’s law and the seventh amendment did not contradict each other. If the federal court reviews standard then it is okay for the New York law to enact. This is important for United States citizens because their cases can be looked over and yet still not interfere with the seventh amendment.

This picture helps support that everyone has a right to a jury trial for civil cases in the federal courts.

"Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc.." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 10, 2015. <>

Eighth Amendment: No Cruel or Unusual Punishment

Court Case: Kennedy Vs. Louisiana

Patrick Kennedy questioned the courts about his death penalty sentence in 2008. He was sentenced for rape of a child who didn't die. Out of 3,350 sentenced, Kennedy was one out of two sentenced for this type of crime. The article states the crime has uncommonly seen the death penalty. Kennedy questioned his right to no cruel or unusual punishment since he was one of two that has ever been sentenced based on the crime they committed. Because there was only one case before to look back on and compare, the courts didn't have much to relay. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional since only one person before him was sentenced to the death penalty. The crime was not considered an extreme worst offence that required the perpetrator to be terminated. Also, the article stated that death penalty can have a worse, everlasting effect on victims. It is better for them to get help and overcome what happened then to know the person was put to death and have the memories to haunt them.

This picture is of Gasperini and his girlfriend.

"KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA, No. 07-343." KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA, No. 07-343. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Ninth Amendment: Rights of Citizens

Court Case: Gay Marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court

Same sex marriage is a case most of the nation was familiar with. The act of six lawsuits from four states caught the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. One specific lawsuit came from Jim Obergefell and his significant other, John Author. The two were married in Maryland and then moved to Ohio. John was dying of ALS and they both wanted the state to recognize their marriage on his death certificate. In this particular case the federal court made Ohio acknowledge the marriage. Previously, there had been a record of 136 amicus, or friend of the court briefs about Obamacare in 2013. Same sex marriage has received the record with 148 briefs. Persons camped outside the courtroom four days before the hearing in efforts to be present during the session. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled same sex marriage as constitutional and therefore legal in all states. They also added that states who already banned same sex marriage will be forced to issue same sex marriage licences. This is huge for the United States. The new law allows more of the nation to be more selectable as a whole and open to others decisions.

The flag in this picture represents same sex marriage and all the people that support the newly law passed in 2015.

"Gay Marriage in the US Supreme Court, 2015 - Gay Marriage -" ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.