The year is suppose to be included at the end of a citation in parenthesis. 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

The government may NOT prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds it offensive or disagreeable.

It was the First Amendment, which involves the freedom of expression.

Justice Kennedy was concurring.

His name was Gregory Lee Johnson.

Gregory Lee Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it in kerosene, and set it on fire.

NO, the constitutionality of this program does not turn on whether most schools are religious or not. More religious schools happened to participate in this program and families could choose between the religious or secular schools.

The program IS of true private choice and IS neutral in all respects toward religion. The program gave educational assistance to a broad class of individuals in a failing school district. The program's only preference was for low-income families who could then choose where their children went to school. The program benefits were available to all families on neutral terms with NO reference to religion.

The court determined that the program was not subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause. It did not violate the clause because the government aid was going to a broad class of citizens, not directly to a religious organization. It was the citizens who then aided religious schools.

Took place in 2002, not 1982.

The Courts vote was 5-4 in favor of Zelman.

The legal issue was if the voucher program offended the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

97 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.

80 percent of the private schools were religious.

Simmons-Harris charged that the voucher program violated the establishment clause since 80 percent of the schools who participated were religious.

It was the parents who could choose among the options for their children.

Justice O'Connor had a concurring opinion.

A legal citation should include the volume of U.S. reports and the page number where the case is found along with the year that the case took place. The proper legal citation is 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

When do state laws take effect over federal laws? How do you know when which is supreme? or vice versa?

When assembling in their states, did they form permanent locations to meet or was it a random?

Is this saying that the federal government can tax the states, but the states cannot tax the federal government?

The nation was involved in the Korean War during this time.

The Court ruled no against Sawyer and in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

Roberts was not a Judge in this case.

It was a presidential policy set by the president.

Truman's action cannot be upheld as an exercise of the presidents military power as Commander in Chief.

The Court ruled against Sawyer.

It was the President, not Congress.

Jackson: concurring

The labor dispute began in the steel industry.

Now that Marshall observes the supreme law of the land to be the constitution, this makes me wonder how the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed when it altered the original jurisdiction that was written in the constitution. Did the creators of the this act not consult or care about the constitution?

When deciding a case, how is being able to disregard the constitution part of judicial duty? Isn't that the backbone for making laws in this country? It the court's duty to determine if the laws are constitutional or not.

Is this saying that the court must put the Constitution first, over an act of congress? Are the principles, which are being referred to, those in the Constitution? If not, what are they?

I believe Justice Breyer is part of the majority. Similar to Justice Alito, he gives Layton several hypotheticals. Layton's argument toward these hypotheticals show discrimination by not giving benefits, such as policemen, to a church simply because it is religious. Justice Breyer also sounds annoyed and short with Layton.

I believe Justice Alito is part of the majority. He does not lay off with the pressing questions toward Layton. The way he gives several hypotheticals back to back and questions why state funds could not help these organizations, makes me think he is against Layton's argument.

I believe Justice Kagan is the second dissenter. She seems to side against Cortman as she argues that the States should have some flexibility in their choices. She questions what would happen if one church received benefits while a different church didn't. Cortman goes on to say that the program is religion blind, but its seemed to me that she was not agreeing with anything he said.

I looked up the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, but I am still unsure what it means and how it pertains to this case? I wish they would have elaborated more on it. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Doctrine deals with exceptions to mootness, however, I thought Justice Breyer said this case was not moot.

I am a little confused with Cortman's argument. If the court favors religion, then theres an Establishment Clause problem, but if the court attacks religion, then theres a Free Exercise Clause problem. How can these things be balanced out? When is it appropriate to accommodate religion? What are other examples of the court accommodating religion?

I now believe that Justice Sotomayor is one of the dissenters. I noticed that she did not ask Cortman any questions pertaining to his case, but instead stated her argument that the country should not be involved with the church. She also referred to other state constitutions with similar amendments that allow the refusal of benefits to be given to religious organizations.