This should read something to the effect that the government's interest should be unconnected to expression rather than no interest at all.

This should read simply because instead of whenever.

This should read not instead of always.

Missing the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Brennan.

Justice Kennedy gave a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one.

There was evidence, that's why the Court ruled as it did.

The Amendment in question is the First Amendment, not the Second.

If this is part of what happened, it is irrelevant to Johnson's case - it was never mentioned in the description of the case facts.

This is where the year of the case should be listed. This should read "491 U.S. 397 (1989)"

The year should not be listed in this section.

There are two missing opinions in this section:

Rehnquist: opinion of the Court Ginsburg: dissenting

O'Connor's opinion was concurring, not dissenting.

The constitutionality of the program dealt with how the funds got to the religious schools (via the parents' choice), not whether the programs were religious.

This entire point is incorrect. The Court determined it was neutral toward religion and was an attempt to allow lower-income families the opportunity to allow their children to attend better performing schools and was not specific regarding any religion.

The Court's previous cases in regard to this issue were determined not to have violated the establishment clause.

The Court's previous cases in regard to this issue were determined not to have violated the establishment clause.

A key word is missing here - it's not just aid to schools, but aid directly to religious schools.

The vote was 5-4, not 7-2.

While the establishment clause applied to the state because of the 14th Amendment, the issue at hand was whether or not the Cleveland school district's program violated the establishment clause from the 1st Amendment.

There's no mention of how many students used them at private schools, but 96.7 percent of those that chose to use the vouchers used them at the various religiously-affiliated private schools.

80 percent of the available, participating schools were religious, not 10 percent.

It was a combination of failing or dropping out, not just dropping out.

The case dealt with the Cleveland school district, not the Baltimore school district.

The correct citation should read 536 U.S. 639.

Should read "Case" not "Legal".

The case was in 2002, not 1982.

Isn't this, by nature, the reason that we have the judicial branch of the government? Their job is to interpret the Constitution so that people can better understand how the law works, I thought, so isn't it still not understood by the public?

Is Marshall saying that the people chose the delegates directly or that the legislature chose the delegates for each state?

Is Marshall saying this from his own personal perspective or is he saying that this is the claim made by the state of Maryland?

Congress has not rid itself of lawmaking power. That power still belongs to them, as per Article I of the Constitution.

Justice Roberts could not have offered an opinion in this case as he was not appointed until 2003.

Jackson issued a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one.

The author of the Opinion of the Court - it was written by Justice Black.

The Court ruled in favor Youngstown Sheet & Tube, not against.

Congress didn't take over the industry. Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize the steel mills.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 didn't forbid the action that President Truman took, it required 80 days to allow the sides to cool off and try and come to a reconciliation before the President was allowed to take action.

The U.S. was involved in Korea, not Vietnam.

The dispute was in the steel industry, not sugar manufacturing.

This is an incorrect Case Name as the year of the case should not be included in this section.

Is this where Marshall makes his ultimate point that the Constitution is the final word over any legal matters and that anything that is contrary to the Constitution is automatically dismissable?

Can this come across a little ambiguously in that the judicial branch makes the laws or that it simply interprets them and puts them in layman terms?

Is Marshall saying that the Constitution is what gives the legislature the power to assign original jurisdiction or that this comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789?

If it's the surface of the whole playground, even though it isn't specific pieces of equipment on the playground, doesn't it cover the entire thing as it is meant to make the playground as a whole safer?

Justice Sotomayor seems to lay out a valid argument for what many would look at as the main issue in this case, that the State of Missouri would be paying out funds directly to a church to spread its religious message.

Justice Ginsburg, very early in this case, seemed to lay out her case for dissenting from what she believes will be the ultimate outcome of this case by using the example of a case in 1947 that said that tax money collected should not be used to improve any sort of religious property.

Based on the direction of Justice Alito's questioning in this exchange, he seems to be intentionally leading Mr. Layton down a path of why there seems to be a double-standard between this case and a previous case argued in the Missouri Supreme Court. This leads me to believe that Justice Alito's mind is already made up in which way he is leaning in this case.

Based on this line of questioning, Justice Breyer seems to show his opinion of the case that the church should be entitled to the money because of his references to other ways that the state spends its money on other programs that benefit the church, such as police and fire protection, something that people would generally not bat an eye at.

Is he saying here that the right to exercise freedom of religion is more important than the separation of church and state?

If, by making the improvements to the playground surface, it allows for the potential for additional activities for the church to hold on the playground such as prayer services or other religious ceremonies, wouldn't that, by the letter of the law, mean that their mission of spreading their religion by enhanced by the grant money from the government?