Need a self explanatory personal opinions, thoughts arguments and understanding for each of the three below Supreme court cases.

Case 1

Case: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Overview:A suit against Murphy Oil USA by an employee, Sheila Hobson, through the National Labor Relations Board over the company's right/legal ability to make an employee waive their right to class action lawsuit and instead arbitrate any work related damages in an individual capacity.

Facts of the Case:Murphy Oil USA had a policy of requiring its workers to sign a contract wherein the employee agreed to only pursue work related damages as an individual. By signing the contract, the Murphy Oil employee waived his or her right to join in a class action law suit against the company for damages. An employee hired in 2008, Sheila Hobson, filed a class action suit in 201o against Murphy Oil, which Murphy sought grounds in court that it be dismissed because of their waiver. This was asserted to be a violation of National Labor Relations Act, first by the Hobson, and then by the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore, another suit was brought by the NLRB against Murphy Oil USA to prove the waiver in violation of the NLRA. The Fifth Circuit court ruled that, yes, the agreement was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act; however, it would still be honored. The key in the ruling was that, though the original language in the specific agreement of the employee was a violation of the NLRA, the language had been updated in 2012, and with respect to the updated language, the NLRA was no longer violated. This ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS, where the Fifth Circuit's ruling was upheld.

Analysis:This case makes ZERO sense to me. How can the agreement that Hobsons signed in 2008 be in violation of the NLRA, but still be valid because the language was changed afer the fact? I am quite confused about the ruling on this case.

Source:https://ballotpedia.org/NLRB_v._Murphy_Oil

Case 2

Mitchell v. Wisconsin was the Supreme Court case that I picked for this analysis. Within this case, Mitchell had been arrested by a Sheboygan police officer following the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. While being taken to the police station after getting arrested, Mitchel seemed too inactive which prompted the officer to rush him to the emergency room. Within the health facility, the officer as required read to Mitchel the Informing the Accused form which serves to gain consent to withdraw blood from the individual. Since Mitchel had lost consciousness, the police officer went ahead to tell the medical staff to withdraw his blood. After tests were done, the blood sample revealed alcohol levels that were above the legal limit to operate a vehicle. Mitchel was therefore charged with driving with an alcohol level above the limit and also the operation of a vehicle while under alcohol influence.

Before his trial, Mitchell went on to put down the results of the blood test analysis. He claimed that the withdrawal of his blood had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment within the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 within the Wisconsin constitution (Corley, 2020). The Wisconsin state challenged his claim through the explanation that by him driving within the state, he completely consented to the withdrawal of blood within the subsection consent law of Wisconsin. The State on analysis of his argument concluded that he was unconscious, it was assumed that he was incapable of denying the consent. Michelle's motion was denied by the circuit court after the determination that the police officer had a justified reason to arrest Mitchell for driving while intoxicated with alcohol.

This reason made the action of blood withdrawal legal. This resulted in Mitchell being convicted on the charges against him. He then appealed the conviction on the basis that the withdrawal of blood from an unconscious person still violated the Fourth Amendment rule that gives individuals the right that prevents unreasonable searches and seizures to be conducted on them. Through this argument, the court appealed the case towards the Wisconsin's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin went on to affirm Mitchell's convictions without a reasonable cause to do so. The court concluded that if a driver has lost consciousness that a breath test cannot be conducted on them, a blood withdrawal can be conducted without a warrant (Khan, 2019). The four-justice plurality also concluded that a warrantless search is allowed within exigent circumstances. Within Mitchell's case, this was decided due to highway safety being a major public need and the BAC legal limits were meant to serve that purpose. Mitchell being unable to prove that his situation was an exigent circumstance got convicted for the charges which in my opinion is fair.

References:-Corley, P. C. (2020). Mitchell v. Wisconsin on Blood Alcohol Tests Under the Fourth Amendment. InSCOTUS 2019(pp. 103-110). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Khan, J. (2019). The Supreme Court to Consider Warrantless Blood Draws.

Case 3

Case: Trumpv.Sierra Club

Summary:When Trump ran for presidency in 2016, he promised that Mexico would pay to build a wall that separated the Mexican border and the United States border. During his presidency, Trump raised over fifteen billion dollars for this project. Ten billon dollars of this funding weas from national defense allocations received from the pentagon. The other 5 billon dollars was raised via conventional practices. In 2019 the Supreme Court allowed Trump to proceed on the construction of the wall even though it was objected by the House of Democrats, southern state governments, and environmental groups.

In July of 2020, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that was unlawful for the Trump administration to use the money granted from the pentagon. This is because the money was originally allocated for national defense and they found the wall not to be a valid re-allocation. Even with this finding, the Supreme Court refused to cancel the ongoing project.

Question: Does Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act authorize President Trump to divert $2.5 billion in military funds to pay for the border wall?

This is an extremely relevant case considering the monumental election that is happening next month. I look forward to following it and seeing the outcome.

Source:https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-138