Westside Community Schools V. Mergens Case Study

1. Yes, I believe the Bible club has legitimate grounds to file suit for use of school facilities. Principal Gayle Dixon’s decision to deny the club use is based on her interpretation of the club’s charter to be discriminatory and not necessarily the law’s or districts.

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

The US Supreme Court decision in Domokos v. Board of Education is an example of how the court defined an athletic director as a public figure. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, appellant Frank Domokos was the athletic director at Mentor high school. Through his tenure, the school was responsible for hosting the OHSAA postseason scholastic athletic competition whereby Frank Domoskos was appointed by OHSAA as tournament director for the girl’s basketball team and the boy’s wrestling team. In accordance with his duties as tournament director, Domokos opened two bank accounts, one for the wrestling team and one for the basketball team. However, the accounts weren’t used for any Mentor high school activities. Rather, Domokos mixed tournament money with

In the Supreme Court Case Bethel School District #43 vs. Fraser, the main constitutional issue under scrutiny was the first amendment rights and what they specifically cover. The parties involved in the case was the Bethel School District itself, and the high school senior from that school named Matthew Fraser. The court hearing itself happened in 1986 but the incident causing the court case happened in 1983. The incident occurred at Bethel High School in Bethel Washington, and was an ongoing controversy until it was put to rest by the Supreme Court.

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 summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

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

The ruling in my case was the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridget. They allowed students to meet on school grounds to discuss

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.

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding regards a 13 year old student, Savana Redding, who was accused by others of alleged drug dealing (prescription strength ibuprofen & over the counter naproxen) in school. After Redding was confronted by principal, Kerry Wilson, she denied any wrong doing and agreed to let Wilson and school administrator, Helen Romero, search her bag and outer clothing where nothing was found. Nevertheless, Redding was instructed by Wilson to the nurse’s office, and was striped searched by Romero and nurse, Peggy Schwallier. Wilson’s decision to strip search Redding was without reasonable cause (Scotusblog, 2017). The school officials clearly violated Redding’s fourth amendment right by conducting a strip

As custom was in the Providence, Rhode Island schools, Robert E. Lee, the principal at Nathan Bishop Middle School, invited a religious leader, a rabbi, to give the prayers at the promotion ceremony for the 8th grade class of which Deborah Weisman was a member. Lee gave Rabbi Gutterman a pamphlet describing the guidelines for nonsectarian prayers. Gutterman delivered an invocation and a benediction at the ceremony.

Mr. Jubran took his case to the court and alleged that the school Board had violated the British Columbia Human Right code by discriminating him on the grounds of sexual orientation (Black,

The right to freedom of thought guarantees the right to individual thoughts, beliefs and religion, as well as the ability to alter them at any time.19 Protected under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this right is crucial to a worthy life. Like education, the right to freedom of expression lays the foundation for many others within the Declaration. The ability for an individual to freely speak their mind gives way for other rights to flourish.20 One must be able to access information on important issues in society, and speak about them unbarred, in order for the healthy development of any society. Freedom of expression, specifically the ability to freely manifest one’s religion often coincides with Article 18.