CES Case Summary

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited deprivation of life, freedom or assets, property, without due process and equally violate the Fifth Amendment rules that inquire no private property shall be taken for public use without rightful recompense.” CES was required to follow up with a notice and provide an opportunity to be heard before they penalized a student. The board was supposed to hold an entire hearing on the third offense before any expulsion, arrest, incarceration or confiscating the student's phone permanently which they completely ignored.

[The educator] Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly:

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

“Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...”. This is what our first amendment speaks about. The freedom of speech and expression. Schools have been violating this law in the place of school dress codes. There should not be a dress code in school because it violates the first amendment, they do not support creativity and they are expensive.

School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the

The suspensions without hearing violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process clause of the fourteen amendment provides procedural protections, such as notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements.

This case involved a 17 year old student that was elgiable for the IDEA services at the school. The student explosively responded to the taunts of a peer by choking the student and then kicking out a school window as he was escorted to the principal’s office. Doe was suspended for 5 days. On the fifth day of Doe’s suspension, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Placement Committee notified his mother that it was recommending his expulsion and that his suspension would continue indefinitely until the expulsion proceedings were complete. (Steketee, n.d.) The mother disagreed with this ruling and pressed further. The courts later granted the student a preliminary injunction, the trial court entered a permanent injunction

4. Due to potential problems, many school systems have adopted a policy that bans cell phones on school grounds. However, some parents have

The ruling in my case was the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridget. They allowed students to meet on school grounds to discuss

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

In 1997, a parent named Ms. Falvo demanded a very specific interpretation of the FERPA law from the Tenth Circuit court (Bennett & Brower, 2001). She had moved into a new district, which incorporated peer-to-peer grading, and then the teacher would have them read their grades allowed in order to record them. After her children came home and complained about being embarrassed, she biased the teacher and complained directly to administration and the superintendent of the district and demanded that this grading policy be changed (Bennett & Brower, 2001). Administration and district officials did not agree with Ms. Falvo citing that many of the peer graded papers were not recorded into the grade book and the students that were embarrassed were able to report their grades in confidence (Bennett &

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

People all around the world have many electronic devices, and there are abundant amounts of freedom that come with them. There are so many different technologies to choose from, but one that seems to be quite common among people of all ages, are cell phones. Such technology is great for many uses, but it is not always appropriate in certain settings. The principal at my school has adopted a new policy that bans the use of cell phones during school hours. I support my principal’s decision. Cell phones can be distractions in many ways to students during school. They can cause conflicts between fellow students and between students and teachers. Allowing cell phones during school hours also basically gives students permission to not pay

R/s the woman Romeo attacked was eight months pregnant and there is an open DSS case.