Which case dealt with the 4th Amendment, Schmerber v. California or Michigan v. EPA?
Schmerber v. California
Schmerber v. California
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.
 Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects.
 Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
Michigan v. EPA
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
 Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA must consider costs and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it determined that it did not need to consider costs when it issued a "finding" that it was "necessary and appropriate" to regulate.
 Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency praised the Court's decision, while other commentators criticized Justice Scalia's decision to ignore health impacts in his opinion.
 Some commentators suggested that the decision may derail President Barack Obama's climate change agenda entirely.
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
Louisiana ex rel.
 Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) , is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether imposing capital punishment (the electric chair) a second time, after it failed in an attempt to execute Willie Francis in 1946, constituted a violation of the United States Constitution.
 The issues raised surrounded the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment, and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th Amendment, as made applicable to the State of Louisiana via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Commonwealth v Griffith (MA 1823)
Commonwealth v Griffith is a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case that dealt with a slave catcher named Camillus Griffith who recaptured an African American slave named Randolph (last name unknown).
 The issues brought up in this case were Griffith not attaining a warrant before seizing Randolph, if slaves were considered in the U.S. Constitution and if they were, was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 constitutional, and lastly who should make the decision regarding this issue on slaves and how they can be seized.
 The case included Chief Justice Parker delivering an opinion in agreeance with Griffith's plea and a dissent from Justice Thatcher who stated that the law of Massachusetts should not be violated, however, at the same time the ruling decision should be made by Congress.
 The case's decision really analyzed the meaning of the 4th Amendment (1791) and was one of many cases that paved a way to the ratification of the 13th Amendment (1865). Hansberry v. Lee
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) , is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that "res judicata" may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action.
 The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood.
 The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class.
 The defense in the present case argued that Carl Augustus Hansberry (father of Lorraine Hansberry) could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit. Schurz Communications, Inc. v. FCC
Schurz Communications v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, 982 F. 2d 1043 (7th Cir.
 1992), held in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was argued on October 2, 1992 and decided on November 5, 1992.
 The case dealt with the justification of the FCC's regulation of the way television networks are allowed to distribute and produce programs into syndication.
 Judge Richard Posner was the Circuit Judge for the case.
 This case challenged Syndication and Financial rules imposed in the 1970s, as broadcast television changed with the popularity of cable television, the rise of the FOX network, and the discrediting of the leverage theory. Gunn v. Minton
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. ___ (2013) , is a US patent law case.
 The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice.
 In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents.
<ref name="http://www.lexology.com"> </ref> The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings.
<ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"> </ref> United States v. Hatter
United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001.
 The case concerned an alleged violation of the Compensation Clause of the United States Constitution when Congress extended Medicare and Social Security taxes to federal judge salaries.
 Additionally, the case dealt with whether a later increase of federal judge salaries, greater than the new taxes, remedied the potential violation. Shafer v. South Carolina
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001.
 The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole.
 While the question had been decided in the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina", this case dealt with the extent of the ruling. Sheppard v. Maxwell
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
 In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.