A teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom in a school located in New Jersey. Upon arrival to the principal’s office for disciplinary actions, one of the girls admitted to smoking, while the other (whose initials are T.L.O.) denied any wrongdoing. The principal ended up searching the girl’s purse which contained evidence to prove she was smoking in the bathroom along with marijuana paraphernalia. She eventually admitted to using this paraphernalia for selling marijuana in school. Using the evidence found within the purse and the confession, she was charged and taken into juvenile court where she was eventually sentenced to a year’s probation. T.L.O argued that her 4th amendment rights had been violated…
After reviewing the case of Morse v Frederick, on a vote of 4-0, the court concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. On January 24, 2002, Principal Deborah Morse of Juneau-Douglass High School created a school-sanctioned event. This event allowed students to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay. The torch was on its way to Salt Lake City Utah, when Joseph Frederick, in front of the televised event, revealed a banner that read, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Morse removed the banner from Frederick and suspended him for ten days. Frederick believed that Morse’s actions violated his…
D.This case deals with the Seattle school district lets kids choose which high school they want to go to and when too many student wish to attend a certain high school then the district uses a set of factors to use. The problem with this is the second highest factor used was based off of race. This lead to parents from the district suing the district claiming that the tiebreaker for race breached the fourteenth amendment.…
On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser gave a speech nominating another student for an elected position. The speech was given to about 600 fourteen year olds that chose to attend this assembly. The speech contained sexual innuendo. Before giving the speech Fraser received advise from several teachers that he should change the speech or not give one at all. But he refused to take their advice (2). The next day, he was called in to an administrative office and was suspended for three days and was told he would not be able to give his speech during graduation even though he was at the time the salutatorian. The family of Fraser filed a grievance with the Pierce County school board, but the officer upheld the suspension. In response, to that decision Matthew’s father filed a case against the school district. The District Court ruled that the student’s First Amendment right was infringed upon. The students was awarded a monetary judgment and allowed to give his graduation speech. Later, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court (4). Later, the US Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 7-2 vote to reinstate the suspension, saying that the school district's policy did not violate the First Amendment (3).…
The Tinker v. Des Moines, New Jersey v. T.L.O., and Ingraham v. Wright are just three Supreme Court cases about student rights. The first one, the Tinker v. Des Moines is a case that took place in 1965. The issue of this case was the freedom of speech in school. It all started on one day when John and Mary Beth Tinker along with their friend Chris Eckhardt chose to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. School officials told them to take off the bands, but they refused. In effect they were suspended from their high school in Des Moines, Iowa. All their parents sued the school district, because they claimed it was a violation of the First amendment, the right of freedom of speech. The significance of this case is having a right to express yourself. The court limited the right of self expression. They limited the right by not giving students unlimited self expression. Another way they limited it was by explaining that if the act of…
Personally as a Supreme Court judge and after taking a fairly through look at the cases, I’d have to rule in favor of Frederick. While the banner that Mr. Frederick had up during the school event does make a reference to drugs, the message is pretty vague as even I can’t really interpret the true absolute definition of the banner. Judge Steven even states “Justice John Paul Stevens took the position that the school 's interest in protecting students from speech that can be reasonably regarded as promoting drug use does not justify Frederick 's punishment for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement simply because it refers to drugs.” ( n/a, 2012). Another important reason why I am following this ruling is because while yes Mr. Frederick had a 14 foot banner held high it didn’t exactly disrupt the school event itself and it was the principals own interpretation of the message that caused a disruption that escalated into Frederick’s unjustified punishment. This statement from the ACLU even states that Fredericks actions were done off school campus, “As the ACLU and Mertz noted, the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at the Olympic Torch Relay - a public event on public streets - and Frederick had not yet arrived at school for the day.” (N/a, 2007 ). Just by this alone I believe that the principal had no justification in asking to take the banner down because of the cryptic message let alone punish Mr. Frederick just because of her own intrepertation.…
In my ruling, the illegal glorification of the drug culture “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel the school had made a bad judgment call about having the banner. I feel it is not an attack on the saying “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel that this is an attack on the student’s first amendment rights, just because the sign had something to do with marijuana. The school has an anti- drug program. I believe a non- disruptive pin, shirt, banner, etc. should not be taking from a student, for the shear fact that they oppose the anti-drug programs that the school offers. It is an attack on their first amendments rights. It was a 15-foot joke. The school dose has the right to not tolerate an interruption of a school sponsored anti-drug event. But this was not this kind of an event and the banner was not placed on school grounds. The banner was placed across the street from the school in a public open forum. One cannot be punished for holding of a banner not on school property. I feel that the principal was wrong to hastily take the banner down in the heat of the moment, but feel she should not pay punitive damages, for the banner was not worth much. Though the pride of the student’s who put the banner up was hurt a little I feel they should not be punished for expressing their first amendment rights, which they demonstrated non-violently, very conformed manner, and not on school property.…
In Deana Pollard Sacks article, “Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court’s Speech,” the author claims that The Fourth Circuit asserted that these two speech phrases are the ones protected under the first amendment. Again, this concludes that the WBC and picketers had the right to display placards about homosexuality against the Snyder’s family and that it was legal. The Supreme Court later decided to rule in favor for the Phelps in a 8-1 vote. However, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s decision stating: “[the] WBC should not have received First Amendment protection for intentionally launching a vicious verbal attack on a private individual” and “the speech was specifically aimed at Snyder’s son” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Case Brief…
The students were suspended from school for showing their support of the anti-war movement. Wearing the armbands was protected by the First Amendment. It is implied that there are limitations to free speech in a school area, but the principal lacked the reasoning for imposing the limitations in this case. It was not shown that the conduct from the students would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.…
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon stated, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel”.…
Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, it has ruled on some of the biggest issues in the United States. Most of the rulings by the Supreme Court effect Americans everyday. Earl Warren was the 14th chief justice of the Supreme Court and saw some of the most important cases in the history of the United States and many are still in effect today. The Warren court heavily believed in improving the civil liberties of the people. His ruling on Gideon v. Wainwright is no different.…
The Tinker's didn't do anything to effectively mess with the learning in the school, so they didn't stop the school from doing their job, and they were able to maintain their rights. In the Fraser case, Fraser openly made sexual jokes in front of the whole school, as their representative. He did so in a way that was hard for the school to justify that what he did was too inappropriate for the school. His goal was to be funny, without real justification for what he was doing. The Supreme Court decided that what he did, did prevent the school from doing their job. Therefor he had his free speech largely effected in school, while common good was thought to be improved with this decision. Fraser in order to prevent anything like his situation again they made it obvious that free speech in school can be restrained in order to keep the learning environment. In the Tinker case the judges left the case open for discipline on students who "interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Which means that they narrowed the spectrum onto where the schools can interfere with individual rights, and where they can't. In the Fraser case, these same principals are applied, saying "The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech, such as respondents would undermine the school's basic educational mission." Fraser's speech was thought…
Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a violation of what's known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (The New York…
Federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.…
Fricke v. Lynch was a court case in Rhode Island. Aaron Fricke was prevented from bringing his same-sex date to prom by his principal (Richard Lynch). He prevented him from bringing his date because he felt that the students would not approve. He felt that Fricke and his date would be harmed. The court ruled that students should not be prevented from participating in school events that are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). The staff was also told to protect the students from harassment. Even though the principal made his decision out of safety reason you cannot ban students from participating in events because their sexual orientation is with the people of same-sex. Still today schools around the world still have teens being harassed for being a homosexual.…