Back to social studieshumanities use cases

Social StudiesHumanitiesHigh schoolKey Stages 4 and 5

Rule on civil liberties cases before the Court does

One high schooler who listens to true-crime podcasts upholds Korematsu because it was wartime, goes back to the case card, and ends by writing her own rule for when security can limit a right.

Jemel Fanfan

Jemel Fanfan | Founding Member at Flint

Title card reading 'Rule on civil liberties cases before the Court does', next to three cards from a student's chat: Sparky's Security Docket with each ruling hidden until the student rules, the student upholding Korematsu because it was wartime and being sent back to the card, and Sparky's harder question about Ex parte Endo.

"I have used Flint to help students prepare for debates, analyze economic data, and structure essays on global issues. These experiences not only make learning more engaging but also teach students how to use AI effectively as a learning partner."

Emmanuel CruzEmmanuel Cruz, Middle and Upper School Humanities Teacher at Changchun American International School

Why this matters

A student who already knows how Korematsu ended can call it wrong without ever weighing what the government argued in 1944. Asked to rule before the answer is known, the same student can side with security "because it was wartime" and never look at who the order covered. In a class debate, a few students make the case out loud, and the teacher has to wait for the unit test to find out what the rest would have ruled.

Talia's docket: rule first, then flip the card

Talia is a high schooler who listens to true-crime podcasts about cold cases. She leans toward safety: if a rule keeps people safe, she's usually fine with it.

The whole class gets the same activity: the same five cases, the same docket and the same question for each case, uphold or strike down. Each student's chat is their own. Sparky asks what the student follows outside school, and its next message depends on the reason the student gives for each ruling. The chat below leaves out the Pentagon Papers and Hamdi cards.

Sparky uses the student's interestSparky sends the student back to the case cardA reasoned ruling gets a harder question
T

Talia

Interest: True-crime podcasts about cold casesStarting point: Sides with security on every case

Sparky

Hi! Today you will decide five real Supreme Court cases where the government limited a right in the name of national security. You rule first, then see what the Court did. To start, what do you follow outside school, like a show, a podcast or a sport? And when safety and rights clash, which way do you usually lean?

Talia

I listen to true-crime podcasts, mostly ones about cold cases. I lean toward safety. If something keeps people safe, I'm usually fine with it.

Sparky

So you lean safety. Keep that in mind as you go. Some of these cases will test where your line is. Your docket is ready: all five cases are there, each with a hidden ruling until you're ready to flip. Start with Card 1, Schenck v. United States (1919). Tell me: uphold or strike down Schenck's conviction, and give me one specific reason from the card.

Talia

Uphold. He mailed 15,000 leaflets straight to men who had just passed their draft boards, during a war. That's not just an opinion, it's aimed right at the draft.

Understanding check

You zeroed in on the targeting, not just the content. Go ahead and flip Card 1. The Court agreed with you. By 1969, the Court replaced that test with a narrower one in Brandenburg v. Ohio. What changed, and does Schenck's leaflet still pass the new test?

Talia

Brandenburg says the speech has to be aimed at causing lawless action right away and be likely to actually cause it. A leaflet that says oppose the draft isn't telling anyone to do something illegal right now, so I think Schenck would win under the new test.

Sparky

"Imminent" is doing a lot of work in Brandenburg. Ready for Card 2, Korematsu v. United States (1944). Read the front, then tell me: uphold or strike down Korematsu's conviction, and give me one specific reason from the card.
Card 2 of Sparky's Security Docket, headed 1944 · Korematsu v. United States. The card says that after Pearl Harbor, Executive Order 9066 let the military exclude people from the West Coast, that military orders removed every person of Japanese ancestry, that nearly 70,000 of them were American citizens and none was charged with disloyalty, and that Fred Korematsu refused to leave and was convicted. A blue box gives the government's argument and a white box gives Korematsu's. Below them: Rule in the chat first, then flip, with Flip Card and Hide buttons.
InteractiveThe Security Docket · Card 2

Talia

Uphold. It was wartime right after Pearl Harbor, and the military couldn't take the risk.

Sparky

That's the government's argument, but I want to push you on one specific detail from the card before you flip. It says nearly 70,000 of them were American citizens, and none was charged with disloyalty. If the military's concern was separating loyal people from disloyal ones, does "wartime" explain why the order covered every single one of them?

Talia

No. If none of those 70,000 citizens was even charged, the order wasn't about anything they did. It was about their ancestry, which is Korematsu's point. I'm switching to strike down.

Understanding check

You got there by looking at the evidence. Go ahead and flip Card 2. The Court upheld it 6 to 3. On the same day, December 18, 1944, the Court ruled in Ex parte Endo that the government could not keep holding a citizen it agreed was loyal. What was different about Endo's case?

Talia

In Endo the government already agreed she was loyal. So there was no risk left to point to. With Korematsu they could still say they didn't know who was loyal, even though they never checked anyone.
The same Korematsu card after Talia pressed Flip Card. A black box at the bottom now reads: The Court upheld his conviction 6 to 3 on December 18, 1944. In 2018, in Trump v. Hawaii, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.
InteractiveCard 2 flipped

Sparky

Ready for Card 5, Carpenter v. United States (2018). This one's close to your world. Cell tower records are exactly the kind of data trail true-crime podcasts use to place suspects. Uphold or strike down, and give me one specific reason from the card.
Card 5 of Sparky's Security Docket, headed 2018 · Carpenter v. United States. The card says police investigating a string of robberies got 127 days of Timothy Carpenter's cell phone location records from his wireless carriers without a warrant: 12,898 location points, an average of 101 a day. A blue box gives the government's argument that the phone company holds the records, and a white box gives Carpenter's argument that a record of everywhere he went for four months is what the Fourth Amendment protects.
InteractiveThe Security Docket · Card 5

Talia

Uphold. That's literally how they catch people in half the cases I listen to. If he's robbing stores, the records keep people safe.

Sparky

That instinct makes sense from a true-crime perspective. But look at the card: 127 days, 12,898 location points, an average of 101 per day. Does the scale of what they collected change anything for you, or is it still the same as getting one day's records?

Talia

Okay, 101 points a day for four months is basically following him everywhere he went. One day near a robbery is different. I'd say strike down unless they get a warrant. They could still get one if they have a real reason.

Understanding check

Quantity changes the constitutional question. Go ahead and flip Card 5. The Court agreed, 5 to 4. You leaned safety at the start, but you just ruled that police need a warrant for location data. True-crime cases often get solved with exactly this kind of record. Do you think the warrant requirement is worth that tradeoff?

Talia

It's worth it. The podcasts I like are cold cases, and a warrant just means a judge checks first. It doesn't stop them from getting the records.

Sparky

You started leaning safety and ended up siding with rights four out of five times, including switching on Korematsu once you looked at the evidence closely. Did your lean toward safety shift, or did these cases show you where your line is? Then write one sentence: what rule would you use to decide when national security can limit a right?

Talia

I think it showed me where my line is. I'm fine with safety when they're going after one person for something specific, not a whole group. My rule: the government can limit a right for security only if it can point to a specific danger from a specific person, and a judge gets to check it.

Sparky

Specific danger, specific person, judicial check. Nice work today. Submit when you're ready.

Upheld Korematsu because it was wartime, switched after reading the card again, and wrote her own rule for when security can limit a right

When Talia upheld Korematsu because it was wartime, Sparky didn't tell her the Court had been wrong. It pointed to one line on the card, the 70,000 citizens with no charges, and she changed her own ruling. On Carpenter, the case closest to her podcasts, she sided with security again, and Sparky sent her back to the 127 days of records on that card.

Talia and her chat are an example we wrote for this page. We ran the library activity in Flint as a test student and typed Talia's messages. Sparky's replies are its own words from that run, shortened, and the card pictures are screenshots of the docket Sparky built in the same run.

What Flint did for Talia

  • Sparky built Talia a docket of five real cases and kept each ruling hidden behind a Flip Card button, so she ruled before she knew how the case ended.
  • When she upheld Korematsu "because it was wartime", Sparky sent her back to the 70,000 citizens on the card instead of giving her the answer.
  • Once her reason used a fact from the card, Sparky asked a harder question: Ex parte Endo, decided the same day.
  • Sparky used her true-crime podcasts on the Carpenter card, where cell tower records are the evidence.
  • At the end, Sparky asked her to write her own rule for when security can limit a right.

A teacher can't do this by hand for 30 students, and Sparky does it in every student's chat.

Who stopped at "it was wartime", and what to practice next

While students work, Needs attention shows the teacher which student keeps ruling without a reason from the card. After three or more students submit, activity analytics lists what the class did well, where students fell short, and a follow-up to practice next.

Flint's activity page for The Security Docket: Rule First, Then See What the Court Did, in a U.S. Government class at Oak Hill Academy. Needs attention shows a live alert that one student has given it was wartime as his reason on three cases without using a detail from the card. Activity analytics lists strengths, such as most of the class using a detail from the card once Sparky pointed to it, areas of improvement where 14 students first upheld Korematsu because it was wartime, and a follow-up with a Create a follow-up activity button. The Sessions table shows two submitted students and one still in progress.

Example activity page

After a government class rules on the five cases

The school and students are made up for this page. Click any student to read their chat and see the reason they gave for each ruling.

Set up the activity for free

The Security Docket is in Flint's public library, with Sparky's guidelines, the five cases and the greeting already written. Open it, select Try this activity to copy it into a free Flint account, and move it to a class.

The activity's guidelines hold the facts for all five cards and tell Sparky not to add quotes, numbers or dates beyond them. To swap in a different case, replace that case's facts in the guidelines.

For more history activities, see Flint for social studies.

Start the activity for free

Other use cases

See all use cases →

Learning feels different when it fits you.

For teachersFor studentsFor pupils