Columbus Ohio Case Study

"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.

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

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

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.

Due to the student’s suspensions, father’s of students sued Des Moines Independent Community School District. Initially the case was filed in District Court which dismissed the complaint and upheld the schools’ authority to enforce the policy because a fear of a school disturbance would result from the armband protest. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, which considered the case en banc. where the court was divided equally the case was granted certiorari. On

Constitutional issues in this case are the student is not given his First Amendment rights and also the Due Process a Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to freedom of speech and due process are both laws that anyone should be following and anyone making a decision toward a case needs to consider these because they are apart of the amendments and rights to the people. However, in this case they ruled that Bethel High School was not wrong and didn't take away his

The rights of Cyrus were not violated as it is stated in the Tinker v.s Des Moines case. The Court ruled, “On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the authority the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in

The students were suspended and told not to come back unless they didn’t wear the armbands. They complied, but their parents took the case to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech. On February 24th, 1969, “the Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process,” ("Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student

First Amendment protections are the most essential rights ensured to Americans; however, they are not absolute. The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has never taken the stance that these protections are assured in all conditions. School speech is one such area, since the decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Court has been willing to constrain the fairly extensive Tinker holding requiring a school to demonstrate that a student’s speech is a material and substantial disruption in order to curtail student’s First Amendment rights. The Court, in each instance since the Tinker case, has restricted Tinker as opposed to applying it as drafted. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Court created an exception

Carlos: Under the First Amendment, did Alpine High School offend the Constitution when it prevented Petitioner’s potentially disruptive and divisive opinion article for publication in the school sponsored newspaper?

Following with the majority opinion on this case, the Supreme Court rules that student rights were violated. Thoroughly reviewing previous cases similar to Broker v Oakwood, the Court finds a large resemblance to a case from 1969, Tinker v Des Moines. Students at the Des Moines school district protested their

I tended to favor a loose interpretation of the laws for this case. Even though everyone is to allow to express their opinions, the restrictions were necessary. These restrictions were created to avoid mayhem within the student body which can lead to even more serious trouble.I honestly think the school was in no wrong because the school was doing like any other school would do by protecting their student’s rights. The school was just simply representing the interest of the majority. Newspaper are a way the students could have used to express their feelings

The court held that the 1st Amendment didn’t require schools to promote particular types of student speech. They held that high schools must set certain standards regarding speech and the school retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was considered inconsistent within the shared values of a civilized social order. They also said that editorial control over the content of speech is allowed if the school has a legitimate pedagogical concern for it.

In Columbus, Ohio, nine students, one of which was named Dwight Lopez, were given a ten-day suspension from Central High School; due to the fact, that they were accused of destroying school property and disturbing the learning environment. According to the Ohio Law § 3313.66, a ten day suspension or expulsion are completely within the rights of the principal; however, it is also required that the parents of the students are notified within twenty-four hours and a reason is given. In addition, expelled students have the right to appeal the expulsion to the Board of Educations as stated in Ohio Law §3313.66, but this does not relate to suspension. However, these students were not given the right to a hearing, which was a clear violation of their

Did the school practice the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is relevant for these students