Court Case Of January 26-27 Of 1963

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The second law case, 468 U.S. 883, was documented in the Supreme Court of United States on July 5th, 1984. The case lectured about Amber Tatro, an 8-year-old girl from Texas who was diagnosed with Spina Bifida, and discussed whether the school should provide catheterization service to her during class hours. This was the first case for the Court to define the distinction between “School Health Services” and “Medical Services”.

Luis M. v. Hayward Unified School District case can be applied to this situation when a student was attacked and thusly injured in his school’s hallway in between class changes. There were no teachers supervising the hallway. Luis M. was a 15-year-old sophomore. Luis M. said a gang member attacked him in the lunchroom on his first day at Hayward High. Luis M. said the school was negligent in supervising the students and allowing the nonstudents to enter campus. Applying this case to the walkway here, the school could easily be considered negligent if a student were to become injured while traveling along this area because of a lack of supervision. The school is breaching its duty of care to the students’ safety. Lack of supervision could

Tinker v. Des Moines Schools took place in 1969. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools is that the case detailed the rights of students attending public schools. The case originated when five children, four of which were Tinker children and one a friend of the children, wanted to wear black armband to protest the Vietnam War at their school. The administrators on the Des Moines School Board created a policy that required the students to remove the armbands or they would be punished. Three of the five children were suspended from school. In District Court, the court ruled that the Des Moines School Board were justified in their actions.

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

These errors may have been as a result of SRO being new and not being familiar with school protocol. Also, according to the established due process requirements from Goss v. Lopez (1975), since Truant continued to deny the charges, he should have been able to explain the evidence and given the opportunity to present his version of the events. He was given the opportunity to explain what happened in class, but not for testing positive on the drug test. By his statement it is not clear if he was told that he tested positive for amphetamines. If he does have a diagnosis of ADHD and taking medication, that would explain the positive result of the urine sample. But, since this conversation has not taken place with his parents, this issue remains in question. Since he did indeed test positive this is in violation of Offense #3 (Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverages, and Stimulant Drugs – A student shall not be under the influence of any

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

The families of the students filed suit in the District Court stating that their First Amendment rights were violated. The case went before the District Court and was appealed to the Supreme Court. The families sought for nominal damages as well (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, involved the Bethel School District and a student named Matthew Fraser. The case dealt with freedom of speech in public schools. During a student government speech Fraser used inappropriate language that included sexual innuendos in order to nominate a fellow classmate. The speech created a rowdy audience of over 600 students. Fraser argued that the school violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him for his endorsement of a fellow classmate. After being tried and appealed in the Ninth Circuit in 1984, the case found it’s was to the United States Supreme Court in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled that school officials did NOT violate Fraser’s

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

Assuming that the school district was not justified in its actions, does Susie have a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Based on the presented facts, it is the opinion of this writer that the educator’s termination will be upheld and the defendant will win the case. Using Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F. 2d 657 (1987), as precedent, the actions of the plaintiff caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. While educators are afforded the right of academic freedom “to speak freely about their subjects, to experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods” (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014, p. 7-12), one should err on the side of caution, as “great deference is paid to the local board of education since they have the power to determine the curriculum and the materials used”