What Is The Supreme Court Case Of Doe V. Duncanville Independent School District

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

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.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, two Supreme Court justices, Abe Fortas and Hugo Black, give their testimony through writing, in which, Fortas agues in favor of the students and gives valid evidence in order to prove his case. However, Black, while he leans in favor of the schools focuses mainly on his opinion that the decision should be left to the school officials and not the courts.

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

This article discusses Jane Doe, a Texas high school girl sexually molested by a high school teacher. Jane Doe filed a civil suit against Taylor independent School District. The reasons were, the school board permitted violations of due process and violated her equal protection rights. Jane thoroughly established her constitutional rights and proceeded with her claim. The teacher violated the fourteenth amendment to be free from sexual abuse by a state employed teacher. The court ruled in favor of Doe, stating that there was no action taken in order to prevent the violation of her rights. This case impressed me, it was very interesting. I believe that the teacher violated the student rights and the school failed to properly respond to the claims of molestation. I was also shocked that the school district was not proactive toward Doe needs.

Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

86). The Supreme Court ruling in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District set the standard for protection of students’ First Amendment rights. Many cases that have utilized the ruling of this case have been in cases that dealt with student freedom of speech. Even though this case dealt with students wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, the standard was set for students in dealing with publications, yearbooks, and newspapers as well (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

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.

The First Amendment being fought over, in 2004, Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdew, a father challenged constitutionality of requiring public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase " Under God", since 1954. The court determined that mr. Newdew, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to

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”.

After a five year court battle, the courts ruled that the public school districts cannot let students lead crowds in prayer before football games. The reasoning was because the prayer is happening on government land at school sponsored events, that they are pushing the constitutional requirement that separates church from state.

The Supreme Court has just received Santa Fe v the people, in this case the students was banned from saying a prayer at a foot ball game . The constitution protects the right to free speech. Therefore, there is no reason for this case to have come up in the first place. If someone does not want to hear a prayer, they do not have to listen to it. If I were the judge I would rule that banning prayer at school events is unconstitutional.