Lesson Plan Format Using Understanding by Design Framework

Stage 1: Identify Desired Results

Title: Civics
Grade: 10th Grade
Author: Hanna Johnson
Number of Class Periods: 1
Essential Questions:
 Should the United States Constitution be rewritten?
 Is the functioning of the United States Supreme Court democratic?

State of Michigan Content Standards:

 2.2.2 Using both abstract and concrete examples, analyze how conflicts may arise
from tension between competing interpretations of, and differing priorities of,
core values.
 3.2.4 Explain the role of the Bill of Rights and each of its amendments in
restraining the power of government over individuals.
 3.4.3 Describe considerations and criteria that have been used to deny, limit, or
extend protection of individual rights.

Related Skills:
 P1.3 Explain points of agreement and disagreement that experts have about the
interpretation of sources and the application of disciplinary concepts.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SS_May_2018_Public_Final_622357_7.pdf

Learning Objectives:
 Develop a hypothetical Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation of the
Second Amendment in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller
 Interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment
 Evaluate the various ways of interpretation and how they support or limit
individual rights/collective rights

Content Rationale:
 The content underlying this lesson is significant for various reasons. The lesson
provides an opportunity for students to better understand how the Supreme Court
functions and how law is interpreted. As a citizen of the United States,
understanding the function and the role the three branches of the government is
key in our ability to be engaged and aware citizens. Looking at rulings regarding
the Second Amendment is valuable, as student will further understand the issues
of interpreting the Constitution: as the writings is vague, interpretations often
differ between Justices in a single moment and interpretation can change over the
course of time. Furthermore, students will understand the significance of the
Constitution as it is the law of the land and thus supreme. Citizens should
understand the role of the Supreme Court as their rulings can both limit or protect
 the rights of citizens. Citizens should also be aware of the potentially
undemocratic nature of the ruling process of the Supreme Court: the ability for
unelected Justices to disagree in their rulings and rationale illuminate that perhaps
the U.S. Constitution is unable to be interpreted in a way that is free of bias and
perspective.

Instructional Strategy Rationale:

 The lesson is focused upon a Mock Supreme Court Conference (ultimately
hearing the case and ruling whether to affirm or reverse the current court decision
on the case). Using a Mock Supreme Court Conference allows students to
understand the role of the Supreme Court as the highest appellate court and their
significance in the interpretation of the United States Constitution. The strategy
also provides the opportunity for students to be exposed to the protocol used by
Justices in creating their rulings. Furthermore, the strategy allows students to
identify the numerous interpretations of the Second Amendment in a more
cooperative and efficient way as opposed to having a debate which may limit the
number of interpretations students may pick up on. The Mock Justice Conference
asks students to make a claim and provide evidence found within the Amendment;
thus, building upon students’ ability to communicate with peers, make formal
arguments and critically analyze.

Background and Context: (What will students have already covered in your unit that
may apply here? Where are you headed next? How does this lesson connect with the
next?)
 This lesson allows students to think more critically about the role of the Supreme
Court of the United States and the interpretation and supremacy of the U.S.
Constitution. Prior to this lesson, it is important for students to have grasped
several concepts: the various branches of government, federalism and the creation
of the Bill of Rights as a means of restricting the powers of the Federal
government. This background will have included how cases reach the U.S.
Supreme Court and a very basic understanding of the importance of the Supreme
Court in interpreting law (relating to their significance as the Constitution is often
not explicit and thus interpretable). Therefore, the lesson will expand students’
knowledge in regards to the actual act of interpreting law by the Supreme Court
and the intricacies of this task. Later in this unit, students will further grapple with
the Bill of Rights in their interpretation over time, evaluate the Amendments’
ability to both protect and limit individual rights and the actuality of these
limitations and freedoms on the lives of Americans (specifically looking at the
way some amendments disproportionately affect various groups of individuals
specifically in regards to race and gender). The next lesson will likely build upon
the interpretation of the Second Amendment both over time with emphasis on the
precedent residing today.

Stage 2: Determine Acceptable Evidence (Assessment)

Diagnostic/Formative Assessments: This lesson will be assessed informally through
observation. Observing how much the students participate in the discussion,
communicate their reasoning, analyze the amendment and extend its interpretation to the
Supreme Court case will be insightful into their understanding and ability to grapple with
the essential questions of the lesson. Furthermore, the opinion writing will be a formative
assessment that will provide evidence to how the student critically thought and engaged
with the lesson and their own interpretation and reasoning.

Summative Unit Assessments: This lesson will be further assessed in relation to the
student’s unit project which asks them to choose a specific amendment from the Bill of
Rights and to illuminate how the amendment protects or restricts individuals’ freedoms.
The project would also ask students to rewrite the amendment in more precise and
explicit terms to illuminate how the amendment is currently being interpreted and upheld.

Stage 3: Plan Learning Experiences (Procedure)

Instructional Strategy (please include estimated time for each step):

 Opening/Activator/Bell Ringer:
o Teacher will begin lesson by describing the activity of the day and
providing more context for students to begin.
 Discuss how the Mock Supreme Court Conference is on the
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
 Will remind students that Justices are supposed to rule the case in
relation to law not on the facts of the case (need to look to the
Constitution to make a ruling)
 Teacher will discuss that there are a lot of ways to interpret the
Second Amendment and ask students to really dig-in to how it
could be interpreted in various ways. Teacher will also ask student
rationalize why they choose to interpret the second amendment a
certain way and how that affected their ruling.
 TOTAL TIME: 3-5mins
 Activities:
o Mock Supreme Court Justice Conference
 Will make a ruling on “District of Columbia v. Heller” which
focuses on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
 Students will receive the document, included in the
appendix
 Students read the “facts of the case” regarding the “District
of Columbia v. Heller” case (3min)
 1st students will discuss and dissect how the 2nd amendment
could be interpreted based on the language used. Ask
students to think of how many varying interpretations they
can come up with. (5-7 minutes)
 Students will be given roles: Chief Justice and the rest of the
students will be given their seniority
  The Conference will begin and follow the steps that are on the
document and are inspired by actual Supreme Court Conference
Procedure (remaining time 10+min)
 Students will discuss the case and its relation to the second
amendment
 Students will vote on whether to reverse or affirm the lower
court ruling
 Students will write an opinion (basically states whether
they choose to affirm/reverse and gives the reasoning for
this ruling)
 TOTAL TIME: 20mins

 Anticipated Students Interactions/Questions:

o Students may struggle with interpreting the 2nd amendment so there may
need to be some prompting to help focus the discussion
o Students might ask if there was a precedent already set on the how the SC
had interpreted the 2nd amendment before. Thus, will provide a case and
previous ruling to help students
o Students may struggle writing their opinion
 The most important part is stating the ruling (affirm or reverse) and
providing a rationale for this ruling that is grounded upon the 2nd
amendment and its interpretation

Students will be given the opportunity to ask questions both before the activity
begins and near the end of the activity. Of course, the teacher will also be present
to facilitate and redirect if students are having difficulty or confusion.

 Closing/Summarizer/Exit Ticket:
o Students will need to come to some kind of conclusion and at the end
write opinions in the groups that agree on both the same ruling and
rationale. Thus, the exit ticket is a written opinion that the student has
either written themselves or with those who agreed.
 TOTAL TIME: 5mins

Anticipated Total Time Required: 30mins

Other Important Information

Materials: (Include these in an appendix to your lesson.)

 The source is included in the appendix at the end of this document.
Modifications and Accommodations:
 In a classroom context, these instructions would also be projected upon the board
as another way for students to have access to the material.
  If it becomes noticeable that the lesson is limited on time, the opinion writing
could be altered to be a verbal delivery of the opinion. This segment could be
done the remaining day as well if necessary.

Extension Ideas

Appendix

1. Supreme Court Conference on District of Columbia v. Heller Document:

The Second Amendment of the Constitution:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

District of Columbia v. Heller (2007)

Facts of the case:

“Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an

unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief
of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained
provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device
unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal
recreational activities.

Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry
a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he
wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District
of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant
parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to
keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court
dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep
firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of
Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated
that right.”
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
The United States Supreme Court must decide whether to affirm or reverse the decision
of the District of Columbia Circuit Court.

Justice’s Conference
Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with
their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these
sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case;
other times, they are still uncommitted.

Steps according to Supreme Court Protocol:

1. Chief Justice calls the session to order (only Justices are allowed in the
Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc.)
2. All of the Justices shake hands.
3. All Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any
questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions
from the others. The chief Justice makes the first statement
4. Each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior
justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.
5. When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and
then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most
junior justice casts the last vote.
6. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in
the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority
to write the opinion of the Court.
7. Opinions are written, depending on the ruling and its rationale could be a
combination of majority, plurality, concurring, dissenting opinions (also Per
Curium).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-
outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
 United States v. Miller (1939)
Facts of the case:
“An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating
the National Firearms Act of 1934 ("NFA") when they transported a sawed-off double-
barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA
violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed
(with the Arkansas federal district court) and dismissed the case.”
 NFA – 1st significant federal gun control legislation
o  It imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the
Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities
engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA
firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with
the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included
shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain
firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm
mufflers and silencers.
Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment
does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel
shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned
that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second
Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174