High court to hear voter ID, death penalty cases
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-scotuswebsep26,1,4810988.story

Court to Review Virginia Drug Case
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY1nnsKRyXkADNB7OlqVZUI3f4Tg

High Court Set for High Drama
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1190624578793

Discussion Questions

1. Why do some inmates claim that lethal injection is unconstitutional?
   
   They argue that the mixture of drugs causes extreme pain and violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
   
   
2. Do you believe that lethal injection is a violation of the Eighth Amendment? Why or why not?
   
   Answers will vary. Some students will believe that a method that some claim causes excruciating pain is cruel and unusual, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. Others will say no, that even if some pain is involved, the punishment is not cruel, and since many state use it, it cannot be unusual.
   
   
3. Why do critics claim that an Indiana law requiring voters to show a government-issued ID is unconstitutional?
   
   Critics of the law say that it places an unreasonable burden on minorities, the elderly, and poor people, who are less likely to have identification.
   
   
4. Why do supporters favor the voter-ID law?
   
   They say it is a common-sense and equally-applied way to prevent voter fraud and preserve the right to vote.
   
   
5. What issue will the Court decide in the cases of Boumediene v. Bush, and Al Odah v. U.S.?
   
   The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denies Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. (This right is called habeas corpus.) In these cases, the Court will decide whether this provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.
   
   
6. The Constitution says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion. Do you believe suspected terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay should have the right to habeas corpus? Why or why not?
   
   Answers will vary. Some will say that the Constitution protects natural rights of all, including non-citizens being held by the US as terror suspects. They may say that though the Constitution says habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion or rebellion, that the US does not have a declaration of war against any country, and that the larger War on Terror cannot be used as a justification to suspend the Constitution. Others will say that the attacks of September 1, 2001, were an “invasion”, and the suspension of habeas corpus is constitutional. They may say that the detainees being held at Guantanamo are not entitled to challenge their detention in court because the President has the power, as Commander in Chief of the military, to determine whether they are being justly held.
   
   
7. On what basis did the defendant in Virginia v. Moore challenge the constitutionality of the police search?
   
   When police officers arrested Moore for driving on a suspended license, they broke the law—they should have issued him a summons and released him. After arresting Moore, police conducted a search and discovered crack cocaine. Moore was then convicted on a drugs charge. Moore argues that because his arrest was illegal, evidence seized in the subsequent search should not be used against him in court.
   
   
8. Do you believe that evidence seized after an illegal search should be admissible in court? Why or why not?
   
   Answers will vary. Some will say no, that our justice system routinely excludes illegally-obtained evidence, as a way to ensure justice for all. Others will say yes, that excluding the evidence will allow guilty people to go free, and that if officers believed they were acting within the laws, the evidence should not be thrown out.

Extensions

Divide the class into four groups and assign each group one of the above cases. Have groups do additional research into the background of the case, brief both sides’ arguments, and make predictions about how the court will rule. If possible, have groups listen to oral arguments (available at the Oyez project: www.oyez.org) on the day the case is argued. Finally, have them report on how the Court did rule, and evaluate the Court’s ruling.