While it is helpful if you can find a website that analyzes the Supreme Court case that interests you, not all cases are analyzed somewhere on the web. You can easily learn how to analyze the arguments made in a case, though, and then decide how they impact your own opinion, if at all. You just need to consider what prior case law and which official documents the plaintiffs have cited and then decide how closely the facts presented match the issue at hand.
Let’s take a look at the arguments made in the D.C. v. Heller case.
Plaintiff
Defendant
The plaintiff in the case is Washington, DC. They registered an appeal of a lower court ruling stating that the city's restrictions on handguns violated the Second Amendment.
The laws in question are the following regulations:
"The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, 'unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device' unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02."
Lawyers for Washington, DC argued that the Second Amendment only protects the right to carry a gun in connection with military service. They cited several historical documents in which “bear arms” was used in a military context, pointing especially to a James Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment, which included a conscientious-objector clause: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” (The passage was deleted from the version of the Constitution that was officially adopted.)
The defendant in this case was Dick Heller, a police officer who carried a handgun as part of his job. He applied to register the handgun as personal property so that he could keep it with him at all times, but his request was denied based on Washington, DC's law prohibiting the possession of handguns. Heller filed suit, complaining that the District of Columbia was essentially banning guns through their regulations. In a brief filed with the Court, Heller's lawyers argued that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia analyzed the language of the Second Amendment at great length. He pointed out that the phrase “right of the people” used in the Second Amendment is also used in three other amendments and that none of those amendments require membership in an organization (such as the military or a police force). Scalia cited several examples in which “the people,” as the phrase is used in the Constitution, refers to all Americans. He defines “arms” and “keep and bear” as well, citing multiple sources, including dictionaries, scholarly articles, and primary source documents written during the time of the adoption of the Constitution, along with several state constitutions drafted at the same time. Scalia concluded that to “keep and bear arms” means to keep and carry weapons, and that the right is unrelated to use of weapons by the military.
In the end, the Heller v Washington, D.C. case was decided in favor or Mr. Heller by a margin of 5 to 4. Even the judges were split almost evenly. Both sides had strong arguments, and both made valid points. However, a slim majority of justices agreed with Mr. Heller that District of Columbia laws banning handguns were a violation of the Constitution.
Reading court documents can be difficult work. They are
full of outside references, advanced vocabulary, and “legal speak.”
Don't worry if you don't understand every single word or sentence you
read. Instead, look for common sense explanations, drawing on your
background knowledge of what makes a good argument.
It is possible that you will not agree with the majority
opinion. After all, any dissenting opinions on a case were written
by equally qualified judges who just happened to see the issue
differently.
Take your turn analyzing the arguments in a Supreme Court case. Complete the section of your worksheet labeled Part 3: Analyze the Arguments.
