(a)
Case summary: The person MT is a Muslim inmate incarcerated at WCI in Wisconsin. During the month of Ramadan, a core religious practice required him to undertake sunrise to sunset fast. This was accommodated by the prison through the provision of “meal bags” at sunset to each Muslim prisoner. The eligibility criteria were decided by the prison’s chaplain. On two specific days, the person MT was denied meal bags by guard L even though the person MT was on the list maintained, and was further informed by two other guards that his name had been removed by Captain H, which was false. If he wanted to consume food, he had to go to the cafeteria. He was later provided with meal bags till the end of Ramadan. The person MT sued the guards later for breaching his First Amendment rights.
To explain :The cause as well as the clause of the US Constitution that had been violated in the given case.
(b)
Case summary: The person MT is a Muslim inmate incarcerated at WCI in Wisconsin. During the month of Ramadan, a core religious practice required him to undertake sunrise to sunset fast. This was accommodated by the prison through the provision of “meal bags” at sunset to each Muslim prisoner. The eligibility criteria were decided by the prison’s chaplain. On two specific days, the person MT was denied meal bags by guard L even though the person MT was on the list maintained, and was further informed by two other guards that his name had been removed by Captain H, which was false. If he wanted to consume food, he had to go to the cafeteria. He was later provided with meal bags till the end of Ramadan. The person MT sued the guards later for breaching his First Amendment rights.
To find:The reason for how the rule of law had been breached.
(c)
Case summary: The person MT is a Muslim inmate incarcerated at WCI in Wisconsin. During the month of Ramadan, a core religious practice required him to undertake sunrise to sunset fast. This was accommodated by the prison through the provision of “meal bags” at sunset to each Muslim prisoner. The eligibility criteria were decided by the prison’s chaplain. On two specific days, the person MT was denied meal bags by guard L even though the person MT was on the list maintained, and was further informed by two other guards that his name had been removed by Captain H, which was false. If he wanted to consume food, he had to go to the cafeteria. He was later provided with meal bags till the end of Ramadan. The person MT sued the guards later for breaching his First Amendment rights.
To find:The reasoning behind the court’s conclusion that there was a violation of right.
(d)
Case summary: The person MT is a Muslim inmate incarcerated at WCI in Wisconsin. During the month of Ramadan, a core religious practice required him to undertake sunrise to sunset fast. This was accommodated by the prison through the provision of “meal bags” at sunset to each Muslim prisoner. The eligibility criteria were decided by the prison’s chaplain. On two specific days, the person MT was denied meal bags by guard L even though the person MT was on the list maintained, and was further informed by two other guards that his name had been removed by Captain H, which was false. If he wanted to consume food, he had to go to the cafeteria. He was later provided with meal bags till the end of Ramadan. The person MT sued the guards later for breaching his First Amendment rights.
To find:The decision of the federal appellate court regarding the allegations as well as the court’s view for the post order stage.
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
- Should U.S. courts, and in particular the United States Supreme Court look to the laws of other nations for guidance when deciding important issues, including those involving rights granted by the Constitution? If so, what impact might this have on their decisions? Please explain.arrow_forwardThe State of Florida has passed a statute nullifying any marriage that has previously been recognized, as well as outlawing any future marriages, for anyone who did not attend college. The statute gives no notice to any married couple and gives them no ability to challenge the statue. This statute has been challenged as unconstitutional by a group of married individuals as well as marriage equality groups. The groups have filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted. You are a law clerk for one of the nine Supreme Court Justices. Your task is to outline what arguments might be filed in a brief filed by both sides of this issue, so your Justice will be prepared for the arguments made by either side. Please include arguments for those supporting and those opposing the law. These arguments should focus on: 1. The Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause (what analysis will a court perform to decide if there is a violation of these…arrow_forwardIn which case did the Supreme Court hold that the right to trial by jury for serious offenses was a fundamental right and applicable to the states? A. Duncan v. Louisiana OB. Payne v. Tennessee C. Muniz v. Hoffman D. Acevedo v. Californiaarrow_forward
- "7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"arrow_forwardFollowing the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe, what rights do women have under theU.S. Constitution to determine whether to terminate their pregnancy? Explain your answerin detailarrow_forwardSubject: LEGAL ASPECT OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY On January 18, 1973 Janna (a Filipina) contracted a marriage with Janno (an American). They decided to reside in the Philippines after the marriage celebration held at San Sebastian Parish Church. A year after the momentous event in their lives, Janna and Janno went to the ancestral home of the latter for a honeymoon. God had been so good to the couple that He gave Janna the opportunity of experiencing the essence of being a woman. In America, Janna gave birth to a healthy baby girl named Janana. Can Janana acquire a Filipino citizen? How?arrow_forward
- Please help me answer these questions.arrow_forwardState any two courts in Ghana which are known as lower courts?arrow_forwardThe United States Supreme Court has ruled that it violates the Eighth Amendment for a juvenile (anyone who was under the age of 18 when they commited the crime) to face a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court, however, said that it was the mandatory aspect of the sentence that violated the Eighth Amendment--states could still allow for a sentence of life without parole so long as the sentencing judge had to option to impose a lesser sentence. Some now argue that even allowing the option of life without parole for a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment. Do you agree or disagree with this argument? Why?arrow_forward
- Mary purchased 6 bags of potatoes from Smart Shops. Unknown to either party, the potatoes had become unfit for human consumption due to a secondary growth. What rights does Mary have?arrow_forwardThe general rule is that there is no duty to rescue another, absent a special relationship. Was the Court correct to impose a duty on the psychologist to a third party? What are the implications for a society where legal duties to rescue are enforced? What are your refined ideas about the relationship of law and ethical behavior?arrow_forwardProvide a brief self-explanatory analysis of the following case after hearing the oral argument of the case in Oyez Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. Link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777arrow_forward
- Purchasing and Supply Chain ManagementOperations ManagementISBN:9781285869681Author:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. PattersonPublisher:Cengage Learning