is NOT a permissible regulation of speech

government may NOT prohibit

Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, not dissenting

Should also state that Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion

there WAS evidence

Does an act of State, not Congress

The case was about burning a flag, not painting it upside down on a chest

The case involved Gregory Johnson, not Arthur Smith

This should also include the year: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

The program IS one of true private choice

The legal issue is about the 1st Amendment, not the 14th Amendment

It was neutral / an attempt to provide educational opportunities for low-income families of struggling school district

All religious groups were free to participate, not just certain ones

The program does not violate the establishment clause

This is wrong; Simons-Harris (along with a group of others) sued because the government should not pay tuition for students to attend religious schools

This amount is wrong; depended on the parents financial situation

This case was in Cleveland, not Baltimore

The court did not rule in favor of Zelman, they held the lower courts ruling which was in favor of Simmons-Harris

O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, not dissenting

This should also state that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion

This is not the correct vote, it was 5-4

This is not a legal citation. Correct citation is 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

The year is wrong, it should be 2002

I don't entirely understand why this is being asked. States obviously have their own governments and can create their own rules and laws. State representatives are elected to represent that specific state. They are not on the same level as the federal government, so why can comparing states to each other be the same as comparing a state to the federal government, when they have different powers?

Yes the big and important points are obviously what matters most, but can't the minor parts help with interpretation and give full meaning? Why deduce these and leave areas for confusion to occur?

But Congress is representing that states and their institutions, so why does the question of reversed roles need to be asked? Congress represents the states and makes up the government, that's why they are elected. I guess I'm just confused about the wording of this point and if it serves an actual purpose?

The order was not authorized by any law or policy set by Congress. Congress is responsible for making the laws, the President is responsible for enforcing

This should also state that Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion

This is not true; Trumans actions cannot be upheld, rather than can be upheld

The Taft-Hartley Act restricts powers of labor unions, not the president

The union called for a strike in 1952, not 1951

This case is dealing with the President, not Congress

Roberts was not on the court, though Minton and Reed were and also dissented

Jackson had a concurring opinion, not dissenting

Should not be "ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube", instead that they held the decision of the lower court that the president lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills

Korean War, not Vietnam

The Constitution leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so can't a justice interpret it in a way to not truly be equal to minorities/ groups they don't favor? After all, we've looked at justices who vote "conservative" or "liberal", so if they view the wording one way or the other isn't there still room for inequality?

I understand it's hard to have a middle ground without discrediting the other way, but can't either of these ways be problematic? As times change, the Constitution may become out dated. However, if we don't hold the Constitution to a higher standard than legislative laws, then it seems pointless. Can we find a middle ground that works?

It seems like there is a lot of room for interpretation though. As the opinion goes on, it seems like it points out places that the judicial branch has interpreted something since the Constitution does not clearly state it. I'm wondering if here he is referring to the Constitution mentioning a supreme court that is higher than all lower courts?

Isn't this a different circumstance though? In this situation the funding would be going towards the police, a public protection. In the case however, this question is if the church should directly get the funding. Is public safety a relevant argument?

I believe this is pointing to Neil Gorsuch voting yes with the majority. He is making the case a point of discrimination and the fact the church could not receive funding for a playground simply because of their religious beliefs. He's recognizing that the playground is not promoting religion, it's merely an addition for the school, the same as many public schools have.

I wouldn't consider people of a certain religion being unable to compete in the same way as everybody else. Isn't the point to keep the church and state separate? Nobody is saying you can't practice your religion or be free to believe what you want to, so how is a valid argument?

I understand that John G. Roberts Jr. is trying to make a comparison here, but I'm wondering if it's completely relevant? I feel like the questions he's bring up are a different circumstance and have nothing to do with the funding aspect of this case.

I believe that this quote shows that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the justices who dissented. Right from the beginning of the oral argument she brings up a previous case that set a precedent that church and state should remain separate, no matter what the funding is going towards.

I think this discussion and questions that Sonia Sotomayor is having/asking shows that she is one of the justices who dissented. She is making the point that nobody is trying to take away their religious beliefs or practices, just that the state should not be involved with the funding and to keep the church and state separate. They are free to have their school and practice their religion, but should do so without public funding.

This points to the fact that Elena Kagen is in favor of the church and will vote with the majority. She is recognizing that the funding is going towards a playground, which funding should be available for whether religious or not. The church is not trying to take money to promote their religion or for their beliefs, it is just for the playground for the children.