Skip to main content
Annenberg Classroom

433 resources available

Video

First Amendment: New York Times v Sullivan

This film examines freedom of the press, an essential First Amendment right, through the key Supreme Court Case New York Times v. Sullivan. It traces the relationship of the press to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, and the ways in which proponents of segregation tried to use libel claims via the courts to prevent coverage of the violence inflicted upon peaceful protestors.

Handout

Battle for Emancipation and Full Citizenship: A Journey from Dred Scott to the 15th Amendment

This high school lesson plan is designed to accompany the film “Juneteenth” and encourages students to consider the connections between historical events before, during and after the Civil War that charted the course to citizenship for enslaved people in the United States. Students will also examine societal reactions to the emancipation of enslaved people and how the resulting conflicts necessitated the need for the three Reconstruction Amendments.

Video

Juneteenth: Exploring Freedom’s Stories

What is the story of Juneteenth? Why do we celebrate this newly designated federal holiday, and how is it connected to one of the most cherished American ideals: freedom? This film explores the history of Juneteenth and illustrates how the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution expanded the definition of citizenship and rights for all Americans.

Handout

Striking a Balance on Student Free Speech

This lesson will encourage students to investigate Supreme Court cases in conjunction with the Annenberg Classroom video “First Amendment: Student Freedom of Speech” to evaluate the decisions handed down by the Court in the effort to find the balance between a school’s need for order and a student’s right to expression. Students will explore five Supreme Court cases with the purpose of determining if the Court’s decisions helped or hindered defining “protected speech” for students in public school environments.

Video

First Amendment: Student Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment’s right to free speech is one of our most important rights as citizens. But what does freedom of speech mean for students in public schools? How do you balance a school’s need for order with a student’s right to free expression? This film explores the evolution of student free speech rights through Supreme Court cases, from Tinker v. Des Moines to Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the case of the Snapchatting cheerleader.

Handout

Second Amendment: Why Is It Controversial?

This lesson will engage students in the history of the Second Amendment and how its meaning and importance have changed over time. Students will examine various eras in U.S. history that shaped the debate: the American Revolution; the Civil War and Reconstruction; the 1930s and Prohibition; the assassinations in the 1960s; and the Supreme Court decisions in D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Finally, students will be challenged to rewrite the amendment to make it more accessible to the world today.

Video

Second Amendment: D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago

This film examines the history of guns and gun ownership in our society from the Revolutionary War to modern times and the complicated debate over what the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment. Does it protect a right of individuals to keep and bear arms? Or is it a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard? 

Handout

Freedom of Assembly: The Right to Protest

This lesson will focus on freedom of assembly, as found in the First Amendment. Students will consider the importance of the right to assemble and protest by analyzing cases where First Amendment rights were in question. Using the case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, students will consider if the government is ever allowed to control the ability to express ideas in public because viewpoints are controversial, offensive, or painful. Students will use primary sources and Supreme Court cases to consider whether the courts made the correct decision in the National Socialist Party v. Skokie case. Students will be able to form an opinion on the essential question: Is the government ever justified to restrict the freedom to assemble?

Handout

Teaching Critical Thinking by Asking: Could Lincoln Be Elected Today?

This lesson plan uses a video series called “Could Lincoln Be Re-elected Today?” from a political literacy project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The videos imagine political ads from the 1864 Lincoln v. McClellan presidential campaign using modern-day tactics. The lesson incorporates the videos to help classes recognize flaws in arguments in general and political ads in particular and to examine the criteria for evaluating candidates, past and present, for the presidency.

Video

Freedom of Assembly: National Socialist Party v. Skokie

This film explores the First Amendment right of the “people peaceably to assemble” through the lens of the U.S. Supreme Court case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. The legal fight between neo-Nazis and Holocaust survivors over a planned march in a predominantly Jewish community led to a ruling that said the neo-Nazis could not be banned from marching peacefully because of the content of their message.

Freedom of Assembly
Handout

What Are the Challenges to Judicial Independence?

This discussion guide is for use with the video “What Are the Challenges to Judicial Independence?” which features a lecture by Charles Geyh, professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Summary: Professor Geyh traces the development of the notion of judicial independence from the founding of our republic to the present. His discussion references how the sparse language of Article III of the U.S. Constitution has been amended over time by various conventions to promote the independence of a fair and impartial judiciary. He also examines how threats to such independence have arisen over time.

Download the discussion guide.

Handout

State vs. Federal Courts

This discussion guide is for use with the video “State vs. Federal Courts,” which features a conversation with the Hon. Renée Cohn Jubelirer of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Robert Heim, Esq., and the Hon. Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Lynn A. Marks, Esq., moderates the panel discussion, which took place at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Summary: Beginning with the Founders, the assumption has been that a fair and impartial judiciary requires judicial independence. Article III of the U.S. Constitution sought to ensure this independence through a system that provided for the appointment of judges who would serve during “good behavior” (i.e., life tenure). Initially, most of the states copied this system, but later many changed it, influenced by a different view of democracy developed during what is generally known as the Jacksonian era. The result: These states now provided for the popular election of judges based on fixed terms of service. In 1940, Missouri adopted a system that intended to take politics out of the process of choosing judges. Subsequently, this plan was adopted by many states. Learn more from a discussion about state and federal courts.

Download the discussion guide.

Handout

The Nature of Judicial Independence

This discussion guide is for use with the video “The Nature of Judicial Independence,” which features remarks and conversation with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and David F. Levi, former dean of Duke University School of Law, on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018, President Donald Trump was given his second appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. This opening was widely seen as giving the president the chance to dramatically shift the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court to a more solid, conservative majority, even more so than the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Scalia, who was generally a reliable conservative vote, Kennedy had emerged as the “swing justice.” Indeed, Kennedy played a key role in some of the Supreme Court’s most recent controversial decisions, particularly those involving, among other matters, abortion, homosexuality, and prayer in public schools.

Download the discussion guide.

Handout

Is the Supreme Court Different?

This discussion guide is for use with the video “Is the Supreme Court Different?” which features a conversation with Linda Greenhouse, the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School, who is interviewed by Theodore W. Ruger, dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the Penn Law School.

Summary: For many years, Linda Greenhouse was a New York Times reporter covering the U.S. Supreme Court. Her widely read and respected newspaper columns provided the nation with a clear view of the role the Court played in American society. Unlike many other courts, the public sessions of the Supreme Court are not televised, and not that long ago even the audio tapes of the oral arguments before the Court were not readily available.

Download the discussion guide.

Handout

How Do Judges Decide Cases?

This discussion guide is for use with the video “How Do Judges Decide Cases?” which features the Hon. Anthony J. Scirica of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Stephen Burbank, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Summary: Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Stephen Burbank regularly team up to teach a law school course on the judicial process. Their discussion at the symposium focuses on how judges arrive at decisions.

Download the discussion guide.

Handout

Deciding Difficult Cases

This discussion guide is for use with the video “Deciding Difficult Cases,” which features Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, interviewing the Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Summary: Jeffrey Rosen and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan discuss the 2008 public corruption trial of longtime Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens’ prosecution cost him reelection, and his defeat deprived the GOP of its narrow majority in the U.S. Senate at the time. Sullivan, who presided over the trial, chastised the prosecutors and the U.S. Justice Department, in general, for their mishandling of evidence and misconduct in the case. Sullivan’s role in these developments are a testament to the importance of judicial independence.

Download the discussion guide.

Video

Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium

The Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium convened lawyers, scholars, judges and thought leaders at the University of Pennsylvania Law School to address the meaning and impact of an independent judiciary. The topics included the meaning of “fair and impartial judiciary”; the difference between state and federal courts; the challenges to judicial independence; deciding difficult cases; and the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave the closing talk on “The Nature of Judicial Independence.” The symposium was organized by the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Education in partnership with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

symposium
Handout

Civil Liberties vs. National Security: A Wartime Balancing Act

This lesson will focus on the case Korematsu v. U.S. in comparison with other times in U.S. history when the government was faced with the challenge of how to protect the country during war and, at the same time, protect individual freedoms. Using primary sources, students will examine five events in which U.S. citizens were forced to give up their civil liberties in times of war, highlighting the tension between liberty and security. Students will analyze these events to determine what groups were affected and the reasoning for and against the government action to decide if the government action was justified. Students will be able to form an opinion on the essential question: Is our government ever justified in restricting civil liberties for the security of the nation?

Handout

The 19th Amendment: Primary Sources

These primary sources follow the content and narrative structure of the Annenberg Classroom film “The 19th Amendment: A Woman’s Right to Vote.”

Handout

Why the Bill of Rights Matters to You

This lesson will allow students to use primary sources, the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court cases in conjunction with the game “That’s Your Right” and the Annenberg Guide to the Constitution. Students will be able to understand the meaning and importance of the Bill of Rights as well as how it safeguards freedoms and protects citizens from government intrusion in everyday life. Students will focus on primary sources, the Bill of Rights and real-life scenarios to prepare them to play the game “That’s Your Right.” Afterward, students can extend learning by exploring real Supreme Court cases that affect students in schools.

Handout

Influential Movements in the Struggle for Women’s Suffrage

This lesson will encourage students to use primary sources in conjunction with the video “The 19th Amendment: A Woman’s Right to Vote” and the timeline found on Annenberg Classroom to understand how various events contributed to the changing views and attitudes on women’s suffrage leading to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Students will focus on the Abolitionist Movement, the Reconstruction Amendments, and World War I to explain how these events helped or hindered the women’s suffrage movement.