One of our oldest human rights, habeas corpus safeguards individual freedom by preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. This documentary examines habeas corpus and the separation of powers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks as the Supreme Court tried to strike a balance between the president’s duty to protect the nation and the constitutional protection of civil liberties in four major Guantanamo Bay cases: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush.
Closed captions available in English and Spanish.
Facilitator Tips Video
This short video covers three essential teaching strategies for any Street Law instructor: wait time, checking for understanding, and inquiry.
Mini-Moot Courts Resource Bundle and Video
A moot court is a role-play of an appeals court or Supreme Court hearing. The court is asked to rule on a lower court’s decision. No witnesses are called, nor are the basic facts in a case disputed. Arguments are prepared and presented on a legal question (e.g., the constitutionality of a law or government action or the interpretation of a federal statute). Moot courts are an effective strategy for focusing student attention on underlying legal principles and concepts of justice.
Deliberation Materials: Juvenile Justice
Should violent juvenile offenders be punished as adults? This activity includes a deliberation reading and glossary, as well as accompanying handouts to give students additional information on the topic and to guide them through the deliberation process from planning to reflection.
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
This case explores the following issues: Do Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina (the plaintiffs) have constitutional standing to make these partisan gerrymandering challenges? Are the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims able to be heard by the Court? If plaintiffs have standing and their claims are justiciable, is North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander?
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association (2019)
Does a local government’s display and maintenance of a 40-foot tall Latin cross on public property, established in memory of fallen World War I soldiers, violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.
Classifying Arguments Activity: Flowers v. Mississippi
Classifying Arguments is a SCOTUS case study strategy in which students are given arguments from each side of a case and tasked with identifying whether each argument supports the petitioner or the respondent. In this classroom-ready activity, students will examine arguments from Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks: Did the Mississippi Supreme Court err in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky in this case? An answer key is also available for download.
Flowers v. Mississippi (2019)
Did the Mississippi Supreme Court err in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky in this case? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.
Classifying Arguments Activity: Timbs v. Indiana
Classifying Arguments is a SCOTUS case study strategy in which students are given arguments from each side of a case and tasked with identifying whether each argument supports the petitioner or the respondent. In this classroom-ready activity, students will examine arguments from Timbs v. Indiana, a case about selective incorporation, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and civil asset forfeiture. An answer key is also available for download.
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered this question in 2019.