1. Korematsu V. United States
During World War II, Presidential Executive Order gave the Military the authority to exclude citizens of Japanese decent from areas that were critical to the nation’s defense and places that could potentially be vulnerable to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order of the U.S. Army.
 6 votes for United States, 3 votes against Korematsu. The Court decided in favor of the Government, the need and right to protect the United States was more important than Korematsu’s Civil rights.

2. Question Implications
Is it unconstitutional for the president and Congress to implement exclusion and restriction of the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
Implications
The national security of the United States is of a greater necessity than respecting a degree of a mans Civil rights. This case is important because is causes the court to make a strong decision and debate on whether or not Civil Rights is a more important than National Security and the protection of the Citizens of the United States.

3. University of California Regents V. Bakke
Allan Bakke, applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School, he was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for minorities who are qualified, as part of the university's affirmative action program. Bakke’s GPA and test scores were greater than any other minority that was admitted of the two years that he applied. He went to the California Courts, then to the Supreme courts claiming that he was not admitted purely because of his race.

4. 5 votes for Bakke, 4 votes against him the court ruled in Bakke’s favor.
Question
Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Implication
This case is important because it exercises the equal rights act, and because it violated the 14th amendment.

5. Grutter V. Bollinger
Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. She had a very good GPA average and a good LSAT score, but she was denied. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.“
Question
Does the University of Michigan Law School violate the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Cause?  

6.  5 votes for Bollinger, 4 votes against, the court ruled in favor of Bollinger.
Implications
This Case is important because the Equal Protection Clause does not limit the Law School's narrow use of race in admissions decisions to further a in-depth interest in obtaining the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body.