There is missing information in this section. The name of the Justice who wrote the opinion of the court should be included. In this case, Brennan wrote the opinion of the court.

This is incorrect information. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

This is misspelled. It should be Justice Kennedy.

This is incorrect information. What was being violated was the First Amendment.

This is incorrect information. The problem was that Johnson set the American flag on fire by using kerosene.

This is incorrect information. The protester was Gregory Lee Johnson.

There is missing information in this section. The citation section should also have the year the case was brought to the court, in this case 1989.

There is missing information from this section. In a relevant case facts section, there should be what lower court heard the case first and what the holding was in that court.

This is false information. All religious groups were welcomed to participate.

This is incorrect information. The Court found that it is one of true private choice.

This is incorrect information. This fact is saying that each time that a neutral governmental program was challenged, it was found that it did not violate the establishment clause.

There is missing information in this section. The name of the Justice who wrote the majority opinion should be included in this section.

This is incorrect information. The legal issue was whether the voucher program offended the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

This is incorrect information. 80 percent of the private schools were religious.

This is incorrect information. 96.7 percent of students used tuition vouchers to attend private schools.

This is incorrect information. The vote was 5-4.

This is incorrect information. Stevens did not write a dissenting opinion.

This information is incorrect. O'Connor was a concurring opinion.

This is an incorrect fact. It was the Cleveland School District.

This is not a legal citation. A legal citation should be the volume number of which book you can find the case. The legal citation should be 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

The date of this court case is incorrect. The date should be 2002.

I'm confused on why the State of Maryland thought they had the power to tax Congress? The Constitution never gave the states that power, so why would they try to tax Congress? Was it because they thought since the bank was in their state, they could tax it like they did with the other banks?

I'm confused by what Marshall is saying about the "State to the contrary notwithstanding". Throughout the this sentence, Marshall is saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Does that mean that if a state makes a law that contradicts the Constitution, that it can't be a law and the law is void?

By General Government, Marshall is saying the federal government or just government in general?

This is incorrect information. Congress does have the authority to give its powers to the executive branch, but Congress did not give its power to the President in this case.

This is incorrect information. While the President may have this power in the theater of war, the President did not have such authority in this situation. That power would be decided by Congress.

This information is incorrect. The Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

This is incorrect information. Roberts was not a justice on the case.

This is incorrect information. Jackson wrote a concurring opinion.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Congress can take over an industry. The question was whether the President was within his constitutional power to issue a seizure of steel mills.

This fact is also wrong because it was not during the Vietnam War, but it was during the Korean War. The Vietnam War did not take place until the 1970s.

This fact is wrong because it was not a sugar manufacturing industry. It was a steel industry

So with this statement, does Marshall think that having the original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction is counterproductive?

Here, is Marshall saying that the constitution is absolute and that the acts and laws that the legislative branch pass are not valid, if they contradict the constitution?

With this statement, Marshall is saying that either the constitution is absolute or it can be altered. I just don't understand how he is comparing the constitution being able to be altered to "absurd attempts" of limiting power?

I think that Justice Ginsburg is dissenting on this case because she brings up an earlier case that states that no tax money should be imposed to improve a church property.

Justice Sotomayor is asking how its secular functions differ from its religious functions. I think by asking this question Sotomayor is dissenting against the church because she knows that the playground can be used in a religious way.

What is the Establishment Clause and why does it apply to this case? Does it have to do with separation of church and state?

Here, Justice Alto Jr. is supporting the Lutheran Church because he is trying to point out the hypocrisy of providing for some religiously affiliated schools but not others.

What does moot mean? Does it mean that the case is not relevant? Or does it mean that the case is debatable, hence bringing it to court?

Is the church receiving money from the state for police protection or any of the other examples the justice provides?

So what Cortman is saying is that they aren't getting reimbursed because they are a Luthern church? Or now that they got reimbursed, the state is saying that they can't exercise their religion?

Here, the justice strengthens the argument for the church by giving an example where the computers would be used for more than just religious instruction.