The Hazelwood School District Vs. Kuhlmeier: Famous Court Case

Fraser because both involve students’ First Amendment Rights. However, in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that Fraser’s school suspension was appropriate and nondiscriminatory because while the First Amendment guarantees free speech, Fraser imprudently and vulgarly spoke at a school assembly (Walsh, 2018). The Supreme Court determined, the role of schools is to teach socially appropriate behavior and speech. It is within the school’s sole discretion whether and how to punish such speech (Decker, 2014). This decision contradicted the political speech, which the Court had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969.

: Joseph Frederick a high school student filed suit in District Court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights by the school board and Deborah Morse, the principal of his high school. The District Court granted summary judgment for the school board and Morse. Frederick appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the District Court’s decision was reversed. Morse appealed and Certiorari was granted. Facts: On January 24, 2002 the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska while school was in session.

The issue was, “Should a principal restrict student speech at a public school event when that speech can reasonably be viewed as promoting illegal drug use?”, they said yes it’s conservative. Justice said that the 1st Amendment rights

The issue before the court was the question, “Was her Fourth Amendment right violated by school

The Tinker V. Des Moines had a huge impact on history and school districts. Des Moines was community school district. The Tinker’s were a family that attended it. There were two children from the Tinker family that attended Des Moines and they are John F. Tinker and his sister Mary B. Tinker. They were suspended for protesting.

School officials can conduct a warrantless search if a student has evidence of illegal activity or is doing an activity that interferes with school order and discipline. The court changed the ruling on T.L.O. because they said that just having the cigarettes didn’t violate school rules, so they didn’t have a justifiable reason to search her purse. When the Case went to the Supreme Court, they were supposed to decide if evidence that is unlawfully taken by a school official can be allowed as evidence in a Juvenile Court proceeding. It was argued on March 28, 1984 and on October 2, 1984. They ruled on January 15, 1985.

Kuhlmeier (1988) and Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969). Which implies that schools must set high standards for their students’ speech as long as it is disseminated under their auspice and reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. If a student poses a distraction that impacts other students’ ability to learn and perform, the school has the duty and right to discipline that particular student. In the case of Colleen Copernica v. Jane Skinner, Colleen feels that he has the right to kneel during the National Anthem during a football game, which he feels is his form of Free Speech, due to Morse v. Frederick (2007). Which extended the first amendment right to student speech, and states that punishing a student because of their message.

The students’ rights were defended in a 7-2 decision. This is a debatable case any student could use in their defense if their rights were violated in the school house also.

The ten students were suspended at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. The principal was the first to hear about this and decided to suspend them without reason. The parents of the students were outraged for not getting an explanation. Furthermore, the Ohio law entitled the school principal

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

On May 17th 1954, the court voted 9-0 in support of Brown. This overturn the infamous Plessy vs Ferguson decision by saying that segregation of school based on skin color went against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court also argued that segregated school made African American children feel inferior and damaged their development. Warren gave the opinion of the court by saying that “we conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case helped to establish students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In the 1960s, many people disliked

Per 3 Goss Vs. Lopez Supreme Court Case On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days. One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez.

GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over.

Should Schools Be Allowed to Limit Students’ Online Speech? Say a child is at home scrolling through social media, and they find a hilarious picture of their teacher and they decide to send it to one person, their “friend.” Their “friend” then makes fun of it and blows it up over social media. That “friend” made it seem like they didn’t cause all of the upsetment, and the child who shared it to their “friend” receives the blame. This proves that limiting students’ online speech should not be allowed under the circumstances of having them get blamed for something that they did not intentionally mean to do.