C963 WGU exam latest update 2024/2025 with questions &correct answers graded A

C963 WGU exam latest update 2024/2025 with questions &correct answers graded A Korematsu v. United States (1944) - ANSWER>>>During World War II, citizens of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, whether naturalized immigrants or Japanese Americans born in the United States, were subjected to the indignity of being removed from their communities and interned under Executive Order 9066. When challenged, the Supreme Court decision in this case upheld the actions of the government as a necessary precaution in a time of war. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - ANSWER>>>This case challenged the principle of "separate but equal." It was brought by students who were denied admittance to certain public schools based exclusively on race. The unanimous decision in this case determined that the existence of racially segregated public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - ANSWER>>>In this Supreme Court case it was decided that evidence obtained without a warrant that didn't fall under one of the exceptions mentioned above could not be used as evidence in a state criminal trial, giving rise to the broad application of what is known as the exclusionary rule, which was first established in 1914 on a federal level in Weeks v. United States. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - ANSWER>>>This case perpetuated from the arrest of a man who was accused of breaking into a poolroom and stealing money from a cigarette machine. Not being able to afford a lawyer, and being denied a public defender by the judge, the man defended himself and was subsequently found guilty. Upon his appeal, the Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment required that those facing felony criminal charges be supplied with legal representation. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) - ANSWER>>>In this case the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - ANSWER>>>Although several state constitutions do list the right to privacy as a protected right, the explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution emerged only in the middle of the twentieth century. In this 1965 case, the court spelled out the right to privacy for the first time in a case that struck down a state law forbidding even married individuals to use any form of contraception. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - ANSWER>>>When a man was arrested, interrogated, and confessed to kidnapping, the arresting officers neglected to inform him of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate. His appeal to the Supreme Court upon being found guilty resulted in a decision that the right to not incriminate oneself relies heavily a suspect being informed of these rights at the time of arrest. This ensures that any statements they provide are voluntary. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) - ANSWER>>>Before this case, Congress proposed what later became the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which banned the poll tax in elections to federal (but not state or local) office; in this case, the Supreme Court declared that requiring payment of a poll tax in order to vote in an election at any level was unconstitutional. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - ANSWER>>>Students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school as a protest against the continuing American involvement in the Vietnam conflict. The Supreme Court ruled in this case the suspensions violated the free speech rights of the students and the symbolic political speech that this protest represented. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - ANSWER>>>In this case involving the Ku Klux Klan, the Supreme Court found that only speech or writing that constituted a direct call or plan to imminent lawless action, an illegal act in the immediate future, could be suppressed; the mere advocacy of a hypothetical revolution was not enough. Cohen v. California (1971) - ANSWER>>>This case involved an arrest and conviction for disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket expressing opposition to the draft (and the Vietnam War). The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court since his actions were silent and he made no attempt to otherwise disturb the peace.