Judicial Law Case Study

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.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

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

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

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

Brown v. the Board of Education was a case that helped shaped America’s education system into what it is today. ‘Separate but equal’ is phrase well attributed to the civil rights movement in all aspects of life: water fountains, movie theaters, restaurants, bathrooms, schools, and much more. This phrase was coined legal in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Plessy v. Ferguson said that racial segregation of public facilities was legal so long as they were ‘equal.’ Before this even, Black Codes, passed in 1865 under President Johnson legalized the segregation of public facilities including schools. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified guaranteeing all citizens equal protection under the law. Still, though, blacks were not given equal opportunities when it came to voting, schooling and many other inherent rights. 1875 brought the Civil Rights Act that prohibited the discrimination in places of public accommodation. These places of public accommodation did not seem to include educational facilities. Jim Crow Laws become widespread in 1887, legalizing racial separation. These downfalls were paused by development of the Nation Association for the Advancement of Colored People that was founded in 1909. This association began to fight the discriminatory policies plaguing the country, especially in the southern areas. Finally Brown v. the Board of Education fought these decisions, stating that ‘separate but equal’ and discrimination allowed by the latter decisions did not have a

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

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

This Amicus Brief is on behalf of the Bristol School District. Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus are both students at a high school in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent inappropriate photos of herself to her boyfriend, Cyrus, but shortly after that their relationship soured. Cyrus forwarded some of the photos to upperclassmen in the school. Suzie and her parents were upset with Cyrus and demanded the principal take action. The principal confronted Cyrus, but he denied the allegations. Principal Sheevers told the school security guard to frisk Cyrus for his phone, but the security guard was not able to find Cyrus’s phone. Principal Sheevers proceeded to Cyrus’s locker and opened it and found his cell phone. Principal Sheevers found the photos on Cyrus’s phone and suspended him for two weeks. Cyrus sued the school for accusing the school of violating his fourth amendment. The search of Cyrus’s cell phone by the school principal was not a violation of his

Unquestionably, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) argues “[…] the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse et. al. v. Frederick, 2006, p. 1). This argument from Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) demonstrates that court recognized it was a First Amendment violation on the school. However, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) provides the decision from the Supreme Court stating “[…]

Although none of the defendants are able to comment on the lawsuit, Leyva-Cutler said that “the district is a strong proponent of our individual and collective right to free speech, civil rights, and all protections as provided by laws governing schools.”

He was suspended for 10 days by the school, Beussink sued and the courts agreed finding that the principal made a legal error in punishing Beussink simply because he did not like the content of the student’s home page.“Disliking or being upset by the content of a student’s speech is not a good reason for limiting students speech under Tinker,” the judge wrote(Hudson 7). The judge acknowledges that under Tinker school officials cannot punish students just because they don’t like the context they found. “...school officials may not consor students speech unless they can reasonably predict that the speech will cause a substantial disruption of the school environment or hurt the rights of others”(Hudson 4) The courts argues that the school does not have the authority to punish students unless what they say can reasonably create a substantial disruption of the school environment or hurt the rights of others. So that is an example of when the courts are in favor of the students, a total opposite of when the court are bias to the

The school principal deemed that the articles were inappropriate for the audience and eliminated their publications. The students sued, saying the principal violated their First Amendment right.

Kowalski argued that the speech occurred outside of school; therefore, the school administration had no right to punish her. The court decided that the school district had the right to punish Kowalski. Since the MySpace page created by Kowalski was viewed at school and involved several students from the school; the school was within its rights to punish Kowalski. Kowalski’s hateful speech is not protected under free speech. The court used several other court cases to back their decision. The court relied on Tinker v. Des Moines because “substantial disruption to the educational process” was present. The court also applied Morse v. Frederick by stating that the hateful language toward another student was inconsistent with the school’s mission; and although it started off campus, it made its way to the school computers and campus. The court used Bethel School District v. Fraser and determined that the speech in question was inappropriate social behavior, which the school has a duty to

His stated purpose for the page was to create a place for students to vent frustrations over the alleged hiring practices of the school district. In Bell, the court used his stated intention of his speech to reach administrators as sufficient to restrict and punish Bell. Bell, 799 F.3d 379. Under this circuit’s test, Michael’s page is distinguishable. Because Bell intentionally directed the speech at the school, the school could then apply Tinker to the off-campus threatening speech.