Simulation Game

Goal- Understand Rule of Law as it pertains to the U.S. Government

Outcome- Students will be able to analyze Rule of Law & understand how it affects them as citizens and
the laws of the U.S. Government

- Students will be in a law office and then a court room.

- Students will be lawyers, judges, and witnesses.
- Students will choose a case that they then must research, make notes on, and create an
argument. They may also create evidence for their case. (If a student wants to present a
different case, the teacher may approve it).
- Each team will consist of 2 lawyers for each side and a federal judge. The judge must be familiar
with the time period and laws pertaining to the case. Witnesses must be prepared with the
information they would know and to be cross-examined.
- Before starting, students will discuss & answer the following questions with the teacher
assisting-
1. How does the Constitution protect the impartiality of federal judges when they have to
make unpopular decisions in order to follow the rule of law?
2. How can majority-democratic rule be reconciled with minority rights when the judiciary acts
to safeguard the rule of law?
- Students will then get into their pairs and begin their research on their case, creating a case for
their side. They must be ready to ask questions, make objections, and have a closing argument.
The witnesses must also be prepared.
- After their research, they will then go to the courtroom. The judge will preside over the case
and the students will act out the case. Students watching will take notes to make their own
decision.
- The judge will make their final ruling and the class will indicate whether they agreed or
disagreed. (If time allows, have a few students share why they felt the way they did).
- After the presentations, students will answer the following questions, using whatever product
they would like to showcase their answers.

1. What does it mean that the United States is a country of laws and not of men?
2. What is the responsibility of judges when their personal opinions are in conflict with the rule of
law in the case before them?
3. How does the majority benefit when minorities are protected by the rule of law?
4. Give examples of ways that the rule of law has an impact on your life?
Scenarios to choose from-

Gideon v. Wainwright 1963

Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking into a bar in Panama City, Florida. The police arrested
Gideon and put him in jail. At his trial, Gideon could not afford a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint
one for him. The judge refused, and he had to represent himself in court. Gideon was found guilty and
sentenced to five years in a Florida state prison. In the prison library, he studied law and sent a petition
to the Florida Supreme Court claiming his Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel was violated. The
court denied his petition, so Gideon wrote a letter to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to
hear his case and determine whether poor defendants should be appointed a lawyer in state criminal
trials.
Gideon was correct, his 6th Amendment right (the right to an attorney) had been violated.

Miranda v. Arizona 1963

On March 13, 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda on charges of abuse and kidnapping after a witness
identified him in Phoenix, Arizona. During his two-hour interrogation, police did not advise Miranda of
his constitutional rights to an attorney nor against self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he signed a written
confession affirming knowledge of these rights and admitting to crimes. This confession led to a June 27,
1963, conviction of rape and kidnapping as well as a robbery pending on Miranda’s record. Judge
McFate sentenced Miranda to a maximum fifty-five years in prison. Miranda’s lawyer, Alvin Moore,
appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the lower court’s decision, arguing
that police had not violated Miranda’s constitutional rights in procuring a confession without the
presence of a lawyer.

Tinker v. Des Moines 1969

At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent
protest against the Vietnam War.
When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if
they wore the armbands to school because the protest might cause a disruption in the learning
environment. Despite the warning, some students wore the armbands and were suspended.
During their suspension, the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right to free
speech. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sided with the school’s position, ruling
that wearing the armbands could disrupt learning.
The students appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit but lost and took the
case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Texas v. Johnson 1989

Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984
Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to protest the
policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that
prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely
to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his
actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear
his case.

Snyder v. Phelps

Facts:

Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God punishes the United
States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs,
Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.

Albert Snyder's son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006.
Westboro picketed Matthew Snyder's funeral displaying signs that stated, for instance, "God Hates the
USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "Don't Pray for the USA." The church
notified local authorities in advance that they intended to picket the funeral, staged the picket on public
land adjacent to a public street, and complied with all police instructions. Church members also sang
hymns and recited Bible verses.

Although Albert Snyder could see the tops of the picket signs on the day of the funeral, he could not
read what was written on them and it was not until he saw a news story about the funeral and the
picketing that he became aware of the church's message. Snyder sued Phelps and the church claiming,
among other things, that their actions caused him severe emotional distress. In defense, Phelps argued
that his speech (the picketing and the signs) was protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment to the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether Westboro's signs and comments while picketing Matthew Snyder's funeral related to matters
of public concern and were, thus, entitled to greater protection under the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment?

Batson v. Kentucky

Facts:

When selecting a jury, both parties may remove potential jurors using an unlimited number of
challenges for cause (e.g., stated reasons such as bias) and a limited number of peremptory challenges
(i.e., do not need to state a reason).

At the trial of James Kirkland Batson for burglary and receipt of stolen goods, the prosecutor used his
peremptory challenges to remove all four African Americans from the jury pool. Batson challenged the
removal of these jurors as violating his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The jury convicted petitioner on both counts.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court agreed to hear
the case.

Issue:

Whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror from the jury pool based on race
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?

Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye v. Hialeah

The Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. was a Florida not-for-profit organization that practiced the
Santeria religion. The Santeria religion is considered by some to be a "fusion" between the religion of
the Yoruba people of Western Africa, who were brought as slaves to Cuba, and significant elements of
Roman Catholicism. The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called orishas, through the
iconography of Catholic saints; Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rights; and Santeria
devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. One of the principal forms of devotion in Santeria is animal
sacrifice. Sacrifices are performed at birth, marriage, and death rites; for the cure of the sick; for the
initiation of new members and priests; and during an annual celebration. The sacrificed animal is cooked
and eaten at some ceremonies.

The Church leased land in the City of Hialeah, Florida, and announced plans to build a complex that
included a house of worship, a school, a cultural center, and a museum. The prospect of a Santeria
church was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. In response, the city council held
an emergency public session and subsequently passed several resolutions and ordinances aimed at
preventing religious animal sacrifice. The local laws prohibited Santeria sacrifices; however, the laws
contained exceptions for animal killings under comparable circumstances and for other religion-related
purposes, including kosher slaughter.

The Church filed an action in a federal district court, alleging that the laws violated the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment(link is external). The district court ruled for the City, concluding that the
laws' effect on religious practice was incidental to the purposes of protecting public health and welfare.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue:

Whether the city laws directed at animal sacrifice as part of the Santeria religion violated the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Facts:

The State of Wisconsin enacted a compulsory school attendance law which required all children to
attend public or private school until attaining the age of 16. Practitioners of the Amish religion object to
formal education beyond the eighth grade because it conflicts with the religious concepts central to
their faith, takes adolescents away from the purposely closed Amish community during a crucial and
formative period of their lives, and subjects them to influences in conflict with the Amish way of life.

Three residents, all of the Amish faith, declined to send their children, ages 14 and 15, to school after
they completed the eighth grade. As a result of parents' decision not to send their children to school,
they were each convicted of violating the law and fined $5 each.

Issue:

Whether Wisconsin's compulsory education law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment(link is external)?

Plyler v. Doe

Facts

In 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to deny enrollment in their public schools to
and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the
country.

A class action was filed on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Texas who
could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The class filed a motion
for permanent injunctive relief, asking the district court to prevent defendants from denying a free
public education to members of the class.

In deciding the motion, the district court found that neither the revised law nor its implementation had
"either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." The district court also
found that the increase in enrollment in Texas public schools was primarily attributable to the admission
of children who were legal residents. Finally, the district court found that while barring undocumented
children would save money, it would not necessarily improve the quality of the education. The court
then concluded that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and that the Texas legislation violated it.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Issue

Whether denying undocumented children of illegal immigrants the right to attend public school
constitutes discrimination based on alienage that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
https://www.cpalms.org/PreviewResourceLesson/Preview/209149?
IsDashBoard=true&IsFromMyResourceApp=true&IsFromMyOwnResources=true

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/rule-law