PLST 317 Research Report Second Draft

Plst 317 Research Report Second Draft

You will write the second draft of a 2,000-word research report arguing for or against the Supreme Court’s decision in your selected case. Your paper will reference at least five reputable sources, including at least three peer-reviewed articles. You must meet the 2,000-word limit within a 5% margin of error. Points will be deducted for submissions that miss or exceed the word limit by more than 100 words.

This assignment is worth 15% of your final grade and is due Friday, December 8, at 11:59 p.m. Absolutely no submissions will be accepted after the due date. No exceptions. You must submit your report in the D2L dropbox as a Microsoft Word document in the specified format. Your assignment will not be considered submitted if it is in any other format (e.g., PDF). Your report must follow all APA Style guidelines, including: 12-point Times New Roman font, double spacing, 1-inch margins, page numbers in the top-right corner, properly formatted title page with a descriptive title, proper in-text citations, and a References page. Any instance of plagiarism or use of AI-generated content is a violation of academic integrity and will result in a failing grade and potential disciplinary action.

Paper For Above instruction

The increasing influence of the Supreme Court on American societal and legal landscapes necessitates rigorous academic analysis of its decisions. This paper critically evaluates the Court’s ruling in the case of XYZ v. State, presenting arguments for and against the Court’s decision. The analysis relies on a comprehensive review of five reputable sources, including peer-reviewed articles, to construct a balanced assessment that adheres to APA style guidelines and contributes to scholarly understanding of judicial influence and constitutional interpretation.

Introduction

The case of XYZ v. State involved a pivotal constitutional question: whether . The facts establishing the case include , highlighting significant issues surrounding . The Supreme Court’s decision, rendered on , held that

Analysis of the Court’s Decision

The Court’s reasoning was based on . Proponents argue that this decision upholds , promoting . Conversely, critics contend that this ruling , potentially leading to . By examining these perspectives and supporting evidence, the paper delineates the strengths and weaknesses of the Court’s rationale.

Supporting Evidence

Research from indicates that . Similarly, supports the claim that . These scholarly sources underpin the argument that

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling’s implications encompass both societal and legal dimensions. Positively, it may lead to . However, negatively, it could result in . Addressing these consequences, the paper argues that . Policy adaptations or future legal considerations are also discussed.

Conclusion

In sum, the analysis underscores that . While the Court’s decision aims to , it inadvertently . Based on the evidence and scholarly criticism, I advocate for , emphasizing . The importance of ongoing legal scrutiny and balanced interpretation is essential for safeguarding constitutional principles.

References

• Author1, A. A. (Year). Title of peer-reviewed article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy
• Author2, B. B. (Year). Title of peer-reviewed article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy
• Author3, C. C. (Year). Title of peer-reviewed article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy
• Author4, D. D. (Year). Title of media/internet source. Website Name. URL
• Author5, E. E. (Year). Title of legal or policy document. Publisher or organization. URL