The Supreme Court.

What is the role of the Supreme Court? Try your hand at deciding two recent cases.

When the presidential election became one of the most complex legal and political battles in U.S. history, the U.S. Supreme Court helped decide the winner. It was an unusual case, but making difficult decisions is nothing new to the nine Justices of the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court decides whether the actions of federal, state, and local governments are constitutional. Recent cases brought before the court have involved questions regarding civil rights, freedom of speech, and the right to privacy. In the recent presidential election, the Court reversed a ruling by Florida's Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decisions carry the force of law--they must be followed by every court and government agency in the U.S.A ruling can be overturned only by the Supreme Court or by a constitutional amendment. (In 1896, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that provided for "separate but equal" public facilities for blacks and whites. But in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.)

Here are two cases recently decided by the Supreme Court. Consider the arguments and what the Constitution says. Then decide for yourself. Your teacher has the Supreme Court's decision in each case.

Case One: Allow School Prayer at Athletic Events?

The Situation: In the small town of Santa Fe, Texas, prayer before high-school football games has always been an honored tradition. The school district required student-led prayers before football games and assemblies. The student body elected students to write their own prayers and read them before games.

In 1995, the parents of two students, one Mormon, the other Catholic, sued the school district. They said the policy violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

In 1999, a federal judge ruled in favor of the parents, saying that students' speeches at public-school events must be nonsectarian (not related to any religion). School officials appealed the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What the Constitution Says: The First Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Arguments: The school district's lawyers argued that the pregame prayers were not an "establishment of religion" by the school. That's because the students themselves wrote the prayers. The students, they said, were simply exercising their right to free speech.

The parents' lawyers argued that the prayers were a school-sponsored activity. The school authorized the prayers and held elections to choose the student who would lead the prayers, they said. Therefore, the school coerced (pressured) students to participate in a religious act, thus violating the First Amendment.

You Decide: Should schools allow student prayer at school-sponsored events? Or do such prayers violate the First Amendment?

Case Two: Allow Police Roadblocks?

The Situation: In 1998, police in Indianapolis, Indiana, set up roadblocks to catch people using illegal drugs. The police would check drivers' licenses and registrations, then walk a specially trained dog around the cars to sniff for drugs. Police made more than 100 arrests. Half were for drug-related crimes.

When several motorists who had been stopped complained, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the city. They said the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the motorists, and the city appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

What the Constitution Says: The Fourth Amendment says, in part, "The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . . but upon probable cause."

The Arguments: Lawyers for Indianapolis argued that the city's severe drug problem justified the roadblocks. Also, the Supreme Court had ruled previously that drunk-driving checkpoints are constitutional. The presence of drug-sniffing dogs does not make roadblocks unlawful, they said.

Lawyers for the ACLU argued that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police officers, they said, cannot stop motorists and conduct criminal investigations randomly. The officers must have evidence that a crime has been committed.

You Decide: Were the police unlawfully searching motorists at roadblocks? Or are such roadblocks needed to protect motorists?