Tyler Junior College Case Study

The District Court dismissed the case, upholding the constitutionality of the school board’s decision to prohibit the students from wearing the armbands. The case later moved onto the US Court of Appeals, where a 4-4 vote upheld the lower court’s decision. They then took their case to the Supreme Court.

"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

Decision of the Court: The court ruled (7-2) in favor of the students, stating that the armbands were a symbolic representation of speech and that the students do not lose their Constitutional rights in

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

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

Opinion: The court ruled that the University of California's policy was unconstitutional. They argued that a state is permitted to use race as a factor, however

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The supreme court assures that the fourteenth amendment guarantees that that education would be the same for all .. that education will be equal for every person no matter the color, where they came from how they look, and who they are. In this case, any child denied an education would not succeed in

This violated an amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applies in this case to prohibit the enforcement of the restrictive covenant at issue due to the fact that the "provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment apply only where there is state action", which is found in this case due to the action of the Supreme Court of Missouri in enforcing the agreement, the result of which is to deprive the Petitioners of their property. The courts judgment lead to immediate guaranteed equal rights for all

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The petitioner Abigail N. Fisher, who is a woman of Caucasian decent, applied to the University of Texas in late 2008 (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). Since Fisher was not ranked at the top of her class her application was denied (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). The former University of Texas applicant Abigail N. Fisher believes that the Institutions discriminatory admission policies was the reason she did not get admitted into the school for the incoming freshman class of 2009, even though her application was much better than many of the admitted minority students. Fisher then filed a suit case against the University arguing that the University of Texas admission policy was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states it forbids

I further believe that in order to teach children, school districts need a certain amount of authority and structure to keep students safe and effectively teach them. School districts need to provide a positive learning environments that includes free speech for both students and teachers for optimum learning. However, I have concerns that school regulations could have far reaching affects not originally intended and when school's regulations are not applied equitably. I agree with the Supreme Court's descending decision in this case and the District Court's decision that the action of the school authorities was reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students. The court agreed that the student's rights should be protected and that ‘students do not shed their constitutional

Regarding the school’s districts claim that students would become distracted by the act of wearing armbands which resulted in the suspension of the students, the court claimed that “in order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the

The biggest reason the Jackson Early College Program would benefit me is the cost-effectiveness of the program. As a high school senior, I would be able to attend college courses anyways. However, with the Early College Program, I would be able to attend classes at a reduced cost. Despite the availability of scholarships, I do not qualify for many of them and I do not qualify for many grants from the government either. College is becoming increasingly expensive and being able to save even a miniscule amount of money is incredibly beneficial to me.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.