The Supreme Court Case Briefs

Court briefs look at court opinions mainly for self-study. This paper looks at the Supreme Court case briefs and the resulting opinions. The supreme court of Virginia V. Friedman case looks at the rational for the admission to the bar in Virginia by Motion where the individual applying to be an attorney must be a permanent residence from Virginia. This is challenged by Friedman who resides in Maryland and wants to practice law in Virginia. This can only be done with regard to the rule of law where everyone is required by law to be treated equally whether resident or nonresident. In the case of discrimination, there should be lawful justification for such. The paper also looks at the Supreme Court case brief between the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) that only accommodated boys thus no equal opportunity in the accommodation of women. The school justifies this because of its adversative method of teaching. As such, the case seeks to know and have persuasive justification for such discrimination because women with greater talent can be given the opportunity to take part in the program.
Case brief 1
Name of case: Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman
Case Citation:22 Ill.487 U.S. 59, 108 S. Ct. 2260, 101 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1988)
Facts: Myrna Friedman place of residence from 1977 to 1986 has been in Virginia during which she was enrolled into the Illinois Bar through admission and the respective Bar from the District of Columbia by way of reciprocity. Edman has been working during the time in both Virginia and Washington D.

C, 1977-1982 and 1982-1986 respectively. Her company’s main area of business was based in Virginia, and thus she moved back to Virginia in 1986 to focus on her a company’s principle base of operations. She decided to move to Maryland in 1986 during which she was denied admission by Virginia on the application. Friedman applied for the admission on motion, and the denial of the application was decided on the grounds that there was a statute stipulating that attorney’s applying for a license on the motion must have been permanent residents who are of the commonwealth. In this regard, she had fulfilled all the set requirements apart from the residency condition. The actions and steps portrayed by Friedman show that she has all the intention of having an interest in Virginia and that residency should not be the deterrence to work in the state.(“Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman | Case briefs”, 2016).
Issue. Does the clause on residency when enrolling attorneys basing on motion in Virginia act as a burden to the attorneys who want law as their practice which is their right, a fundamental privilege under the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, by being discriminatory among the other applicants who are equally qualified by basing strictly on the residency requirement?
Decision: Yes
Rationale: According to Justice Kennedy when affirming the decision with Fourth Circuit. He points out that law as a profession, just like other jobs, is significantly basic to the economy of the nation hence equally deemed a fundamental privilege in the clause. The Clause is used in the event a state does not allow nonresidents who are qualified from practicing law in the country on the grounds of significant equality with the states own residents. Virginia did not in entirety exclude the nonresidents within the state from practicing law. This does not suggest Virginia is beyond above the constitutional protection guaranteed under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The state in the protection of interest has the interest in establishing that any lawyer has a basic stake in its professional licensure and most importantly the lawyer has committed interest on the bar’s set standards and integrity. The state is justifiable concerned in making sure that all the attorneys have kept abreast with all the legal developments. However, the state can still preserve and protect these interests via other means which are equal and effective most importantly means that are not barriers which infringe set constitutional protections. (“Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman | Case briefs”, 2016).
To further explain this, when the examination requirements in a state are waived, then the state cannot make any distinctions between the residents and then nonresidents basing on such. Friedman, in this case, earns and obtains her source of income as a lawyer practicing from Virginia and it’s of small and minute relevance her residing place is in Maryland.
Dissent: Justice Rehnquist and Scalia dissenting. The two judges argue that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not allow the ignorance of residency during the admission of attorneys practicing law, in the same manner, they that they have to ignore residency when they license foreign traders dealing with foreign goods.
Opinion: if the arising of any question emanating from Article IV concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the set statute inhibits the fundamental rights to those individuals that do not reside in a state simply because they are non-residents, then the said statute is void unless the concerned state can establish a valid argument or reason that is unrelated to residency location which can justify a state’s discrimination.
Case brief 2
Name of case: United States v. Virginia
Citation.518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735, 1996 U.S. 4259.
Facts: Among the 15 public institutions in Virginia-VMI was the only single –sexed institution. The adversative method epitomized by mental stress, treating people equally, lack of privacy among others helps in the achievement of the institution’s mission. The court established that the girls were missing out on the school but still it had to uphold the school’s policy citing that it will compromise the method of teaching. (“the United States v. Virginia | Case briefs – Part 2”, 2016).
Issue. Did the school, VMI violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Held: Yes
Rationale: the court ruled that Virginia indeed did not prove any persuasive justification for its stance to exclude women. The defense of absolute exclusion will not be accepted in a direct and automatic manner just because they are ‘benign’ justifications. Moreover, the judge further ruled that the notion that the institutions status would be downgraded was not convincingly proved. As such, the use of generalization on women was not to be used to justify the denial of such opportunities to women with greater talents and greater capabilities (“The United States v. Virginia | Case briefs – Part 2”, 2016).
Dissent: Justice Antonin Scalia argued that a democratic system makes people be persuaded with time the things they have taken for granted over the years aren’t so and as such laws can be changed. This can be destroyed when the discussions are eliminated from the democratic process and incorporating them in the constitution. The judge also argues that the by school is just a superior school to the women institutions and thus there is no relevance to claim its discriminating.
Opinion: the case as shown calls on the establishment of the real differences between men and women so as to establish a constitutional basis. The real distinctions between men and women and the rationale of establishing such distinctions must clearly be shown so as to incorporate them into the constitutions so as to differentiate between equality and gender discrimination.
Conclusion
The two cases mentions above are the Supreme Court case briefs that serve as self-study to individuals. The cases analyze the different opinions of the court together with the rationale for coming up with such decisions. Moreover, the case brief looks at the arguments for the dissenting judges and the opinions of the Supreme Court judges. It’s through the case briefs that the legal rules of law are seen and their applicability is shown (“Sample Case Brief,” 2016). The case brief above looks at various forms of discrimination first concerning residency to acquire the legal work permit and the one on gender discrimination because of the method of teaching which justifies the institution’s reasons to exclude women. The court opinions on these cases are therefore established.
References
Sample Case Brief:. (2016). Ucs.louisiana.edu. Retrieved 1 January 2017, from http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/adminlaw/casebrief.htmlSupreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman | Casebriefs. (2016). Casebriefs.com. Retrieved 1 January 2017, from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/the-scope-of-state-power/supreme-court-of-virginia-v-friedman/United States v. Virginia | Casebriefs – Part 2. (2016). Casebriefs.com. Retrieved 1 January 2017, from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/equality-and-the-constitution/united-states-v-virginia-3/2/