Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The case is about a cake shop (Masterpiece Cakes) versus the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Masterpiece Cake owner, who is Christian, refused to make a custom cake for a gay couple from Missouri. The couple filed a report that their rights were being violated. The court took up the case and ruled that the couple was in the right. The owner appealed, saying he had freedom of religion and that he had the right to refuse service based on beliefs. The case went to the Supreme Court and is now being discussed. There is no ruling yet.

Three sites were used as sources for this case. The first of them is the Alliance Defending Freedom website, which goes through the background of the shop owner and has a nice video that gives a good summary of the situation. The next site is The Humanist, a blog type of site where people can put their comments at the bottom, which I believe is nice because it allows people to share their own opinions. The final site is Oyez. This site shows the court dates, locations, and ruling. However, the ruling has not yet been declared, so it just says ”pending”.

Gill v Whitford

Does your vote count?

You’d hope so, but the truth is the results of many elections are decided before they even start. Parties use a tool called gerrymandering to redivide voting districts in favor of themselves. In this episode we discuss gerrymandering, and more specifically, the recent Gill v Whitford case pertaining to the republican party’s redivision of North Carolina’s districts in 2011.

General info:

Name of plaintiffs and defendant, more background info:

The video Joey tries and fails to explain via audio:


Carpenter v United States

It’s 2011. A series of armed robberies have been committed by a group of four. One of the four have been tracked down and interrogated. He gave the FBI the numbers for his partners, and the FBI got orders to check the numbers. The FBI then tracks down Timothy Carpenter as the person committing all of the crimes. He takes them to court, saying that this was against his 4th amendment right. While this case has not yet gone in front of the court, it is discussed what the ruling would be, and why it would be that way.


The oyez article we cited:

We only used one place, as the people for research didn’t search too far, and most of the other sources just repeasted what oyez said.

Obergefell v Hodges

In this episode of Teens be Talkin’, Aidan, Liz, Noah, and Nicole talk about the Obergefell v Hodges supreme court case which legalized gay marriage in all fifty states. Then Liz interviews special quest Ms. Anderson.

Oyez was where we were able to find and listen to the oral arguments. is an excellent website for finding supreme court cases and listen to them debate it in court.

The New York times was where we found the reactions of people after the court’s decision. is one of the most popular news outlets in America.

The Washington Post was where we found the whole story of Obergefell v Hodges from how it started to the supreme court. is also one of the most popular news outlets in America.

Cornell was where we found all the sections of the fourteenth amendment. is a free website that has records of all of the laws in America.

Justia is the site that contained all the final concurring and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court justices. is a free website that lets you contact a lawyer and find influential court cases.

Hobby Lobby v Burwell

On this episode of Teens Be Talkin’, we’re discussing the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case. Special guest Aidan discusses his views on the intersection of the Constitution and ethics, and when a business should become religiously neutral.

Sources –






Shelby County v Holder

Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were meant to protect all Americans’ right to vote by forcing certain states to obtain federal approval before passing any new election laws and practices.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shelby County in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court opened the floodgates for these states to pass new voting laws—even voter suppression laws—without the federal government’s approval.

In this episode:

  • Huyen-Tram interviewed Matt Sherls, a civics teacher at SAMi. In his interview, he shared his knowledge and opinion regarding the Voting Rights Act, the ruling of Shelby County v. Holder, and voter suppression.
  • Phoenix interviewed Julie Anderson, the Pierce County Auditor. She shared her insight on election laws and voting in Washington.
  • Daniel, Greg, and Roman discuss how they would rule on Shelby County v. Holder. The discussion reflected the progression of their thoughts and changing opinions.




The oral arguments of the Supreme Court case can be accessed on Oyez. The oral arguments contains Justice Scalia talking about how the Senate vote to renew the Voting Rights Act’s sections increased to 98-0 in the 2006 renewal vote. Additionally, in the oral argument, the counsel for Shelby County stated that there is a high registration and turnout of black voters in Alabama.

This Washington Post article stated that there were only four cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

The Nation reported that in 2012, Ohio Republicans tried to curtail the early voting period in 2012 from thirty-five to eleven days, with no voting on the Sunday before the election, when African-American churches historically rally their congregants to go to the polls. Thanks to successful protests, the Republicans had to repeal their own bill. But they still kept a ban on early voting in the last three days before Election Day, with an exception to the ban for active duty members of the military—who tend to lean Republican.

The states that had to acquire federal approval include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Ohio never had to acquire approval.








Safford v Redding


A 13 year old student, Savannah Redding, was brought to the office during school after her principal received a day planner on his desk, with knives, lighters, and a cigarette. He and an admin searched her backpack, found nothing, and sent her to the nurses office for a strip search. The nurse (who was female) had her take off her clothing down to her underpants, shake out her bra, and pull out the elastics in her underpants. Student sued, claiming that the school violated her fourth amendment rights.

Texas v Johnson

This podcast is about the outlawing of the ability to burn the flag, and the fight to keep this action as a right protected under freedom of speech. This case has been decided, but we’re going to share our thoughts and ideas about it. Also, we will be touching on some hot-button issues in the process.

Special thanks to for useful information and audio from the court.

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

It’s Hazelwood East High School. 1987. The student newspaper, The Spectrum, is about to be published. Then, out of nowhere, the principal takes it upon himself to be an editor. The students take this to the courts on the grounds of censoring their freedom of speech. When it’s taken to the Supreme Court, the result is shocking. The group that wins will be revealed when you listen to this episode of Teens be Talkin’.


We used the Oyez article ( ),  which is an unbiased fact checker about supreme court cases.

United States Courts- is an informational website about the facts and information on the case.

United States Courts Podcast- is a podcast about this case.

A firsthand account video: which is from a student who was at Hazelwood at the time.

And a c-span video ( which is a news broadcast about this case from 1987.

Bethel v Fraser

In this episode, Noah, Phoenix, and Huyen-Tram discuss the Bethel v. Fraser Supreme Court case about regulating student speeches, and whether that regulation violates the students’ First Amendment rights. Gregory interviews special guest SAMI co-director Ms. Hall.  was a good site for finding the opinions of all of the Justices. Justia is a good cite for finding lawyers and reviewing court decisions. was where we found all the information from how it started to the court’s final decision. Britannica is one of the best sites for finding information. was the site that we used to listen to the oral arguments. Oyez is good for finding all of the essential information about the case and listening to the oral arguments.