Goss V. Lopez Case Brief

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

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

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

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

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.

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.

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

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.

Perform a search in the University Library databases and locate four school-related court cases (with outcomes decided), two which involve educators as defendants and two which involve students as defendants. Fill in the table below. When you give your informed opinion, state and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Base your opinion on legal and ethical standards as discussed in Ch. 9 of the text. If you do not agree with the outcome, explain what would have been just. Base your explanation upon the rights and responsibilities of those involved. Cite your sources in APA format below the table.

In the case of New Jersey VS TLO, a high school student was held for violating school rules, with possession of smoking and having other illegal belongings on school campus property, and with an argued statement about violating her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Two Piscataway Township high school freshmen girls were smoking cigarettes in the bathroom, where they were caught by a teacher who had seen them. The teacher walked up with the two girls to the principals office, in which they met with the assistant vice principal. They were both questioned individually about violating a school rule by smoking in the bathroom. One of the girls admitted to smoking, whom surely was disciplined under school

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

Albert Rodriguez, Jr. appeals from his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter and felony vandalism. First, he contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of gang membership ~(AB 12)~ He also asserts the court violated Section 654 of the California Penal Code when it imposed consecutive sentences the vandalism charge. ~(AB 22)~ We conclude that the court properly admitted evidence of gang affiliation. Moreover, even if it was admitted wrongly, any error was harmless. Moreover, we find that the court did not violate section 654 when it imposed consecutive sentences for the manslaughter and vandalism charges. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Kelley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 was a 2003 wrongful termination case heard by the 10th circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. The issue at hand was if the plaintiff’s 14th amendment procedural due process rights had been violated when he was employment terminated by the defendant school district. The school district had relieved the plaintiff from his position as the school’s head football and wrestling coach after the plaintiff had been ejected from a football game he had been coaching. The plaintiff’s had argued that the school district had violated the coach’s constitutionally granted due process rights by not giving the coach 30-days notice of termination or a post-termination hearing to explain himself. The district court ultimately

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that: