Grammatical error. Contractions are improper grammar in formal documents unless in a quote.

To have everything fit grammatically, the title of Justice should be included for both individuals here.

Spelling error, as it should read "Justice"

Issue is irrelevant, as the case fact contradicts the issue by being nothing about burning flags nor the Second Amendment.

This holding is far too short. It lacks statement of who authored the majority opinion. Additionally, there is a grammatic error of using an underscore instead of either a hyphen or the phrase "5 to 4"

This is not a majority opinion. All but one Justice is labelled as "dissenting". This would need to be changed to reflect the majority ruling stated in the Holding.

Incorrect fact. The controversy was that a large majority of district schools were religiously affiliated, while a minority were not.

This section mentions Justice Ginsburg in one of the other Justice's opinions, but lacks Ginsburg's opinion itself, among others. All Justice opinions, relevant to this case, need to be represented in this section.

The case was ruled upon in a 5-4 favor, not 7-2.

This year is incorrect. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris was ruled on in 2002.

This fact is irrelevant to the case. The only relevance to gained is that it failed to meet standards to where it had to impliment the voucher program.

This is an error. There is reference to both a Baltimore school district and Cleveland school district. Since the district is the same legal entity in this case, the misnomer needs to be corrected.

This appears to be a discrepency between the Facts and Legal Issue sections. In the Facts, it was stated the argument was based on the 1st Amendment, yet here it is stated as the 14th.

This is not a legal citation, as it would read something akin to "536 U.S. 639" if it was cited as a legal document.

I feel like this hurts the Justice's case. If I am not mistake, this appears to be a reference to the ability to ratify the Constitution? If I am incorrect, please give clarification.

I'm confused by the wording here. If the state governments are meant to balance the reach of the federal government, wouldn't it be the right of the states to interfere when they feel the federal government has overstepped?

I feel that the the statement is wrong here. Wouldn't this fall under the case of the 10th Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

It is here I feel that Justice Sotomayor would dissent, due to her belief that the content of case renders it moot.

Up to this point, I am to believe Sotomayor and Kagan are among the majority opinion. They seem to believe that a religiously affiliated playground would be disqualified for State aid.

If this is the case, why are the Justices even debating as far as they are? Would the activity done by the church in this court case be covered by this Free Exercise Clause? I feel like I need more explanation here.

I feel confused here as to why this was brought up. Why mention such a detail if it neither helps your argument nor does it help the counterargument? Once more, I feel that a point like this only detracts from the discussion.

I feel like this detracts from the case. Wouldn't a school, no matter its religious affiliation, still count as a school? In addition, is a church, no matter what education it offers on its grounds, still count as a church? In my opinion, a Lutheran school is not the same sort of institution as a Lutheran church.

This is something I do not understand. What if the Court cannot find a clear interpretation in the Constitution in regards to a case of theirs? What is to be done then?

I find this a bit dubious. Why was Justice Marshall allowed to preside over this case? From what knowledge I recall from a former class, Mr. Marshall was the Secretary of State in question here. Would this not have been seen as a form of bias that a justice is not supposed to have, especially when said justice was party to case's events?

I am confused by this passage. If the Supreme Court is ultimately beholden to interpretation of the Constitution, wouldn't the Constitution be the ultimate guideline for every case? What if a state law clearly violates rights in the Constitution in some way, even unintentionally?