Step 1: Facts of the case This is a case in which the plaintiffs are three long haired young men who were denied the ability to enroll in Tyler Junior College due solely to their hair length violating the schools dress code. One of the plaintiffs is a Vietnam War veteran who had attended the school for a semester the previous year and had caused no difficulties in that time. The school stated that long haired students had been known to cause disruptions in the classroom. It was due to this that the rule regarding hair length was implemented into the schools dress code. Step 2: Question of law presented to the court The legal dispute taking place here is a dissension between the applicability of the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments in the case of hair length regulations. The Fourteenth Amendment provides citizens with equal protection from the law in the case of state ordinances. The Tenth Amendment which provides the public official the freedom to operate the school under his jurisdiction in the way he deems premier, free from federal involvement. Step 3: Decision and reasoning by the judge …show more content…
The plaintiffs were deemed to have the right to question the reasonableness because they are considered people by the constitution because they are of age,and thus are provided the prerogative to demand the rights guaranteed to all people by the constitution. Those affected by these guidelines are the sole reason the rationality is being questioned. If it were another facet of society being discriminated against other than allegedly disruptive students, the absurdity of these rules would be evident. The rights of students regarding their right to choose their hairstyle freely had been upheld in previous cases. The only times the courts sided with the those imposing the rule were those in which they were able to show a sound correlation between hair length and health, behavior, and, or
Lawrence v. Texas 539 US 558 (2003) Case Facts: In September 1998, a same-sex couple in Houston, Texas were arrested in their own apartment after police found them engaging in a consensual, intimate, sexual act. The two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were convicted of violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” Law, which made it a Class-C misdemeanor for same-sex adults to engage in sexual intercourse and considered it illegal sodonomy. The statute was created in 1973 after the state changed its criminal code to end the banning of heterosexual anal or oral sex. The sheriff deputies arrested and charged the couple for performing “deviate sexual intercourse” as listed in the mentioned in the Texas statute.
The District court upheld that both students were suspended without due process. Piphus and Brisco. The District Court stated that they were not entitled to any punitive damages, because they should have known that any lengthy suspension without any adjudicative hearing of any type would violate procedural due process. The court also stated that the students were entitled to have their suspensions removed from their permanent records, but for some reason the court failed to enter an order to that effect and instead, it simply dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision.
As seen in previous cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, students have the right to political say, unless it causes disruption at school of students are promoting something that goes against the law. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines the students were not promoting anything illegal but showed their thought on the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands (Tinker). Argued in court by Kenneth W. Starr in the Morse v. Frederick case, he gave the idea that the foundation for school censorship was the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (Morse). The Justices responded back saying, that case was a different scenario as the students weren 't doing anything against the law while Frederick was encouraging the use of marijuana which was illegal (Morse).
Issue: Was the juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction valid? Was the statutory requirement of a “full investigation” been met? Rule: The Supreme Court decided there was not an adequate examination preceding the adolescent court waiver of
Because the wearing of the black armbands did not interfere or disrupt the school day of the students, the majority ruled that the students should not have been suspended. By punishing these students, the Des Moines Independent Community School District violated the first amendment and fourteen amendment rights of these
In conclusion students had the right to wear the arm bands to school because they didn’t have enough evidence to prove that it would cause a disruptment to others. “The court couldn't stop the wearing of the arm bands because of the first amendment,” ("Conspiracy and the First Amendment”). Students were then able to go back to school and were allowed to wear
Supreme Court cases can shape our national laws; it can shape an American citizen’s future. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. This could cause unfair laws and create havoc. In 1966, a court case named Kent vs United Sates took place. This case could create the ability to shape a juvenile's life forever.
Overview of Clements v. State The case of Clements v. State is an example of how the legal framework of stalking laws in Texas should be interpreted and the effectiveness of this law to ensure justice for the victims. The case depicts how the law should operate despite certain vagueness in aspects of the First Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas to uphold the conviction while disagreeing with some conclusions arrived at by the trial court proves that stalkers will not be allowed to slide through cracks in the legal system. The case, based on a sequence of events where the complainant, Jennifer Clements, was subject to psychological trauma accompanied by an imminent physical threat to her from Nathan Clement, her estranged husband, is a forthright condition of stalking which complies with the Statues of
There have been tons of Supreme Court cases that have changed the lives of high schoolers and students everywhere- one of the most famous being the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District case in 1969. There were three students, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, who decided to wear black armbands to show that they did not support the Vietnam War. The administrators of their school told them that the armbands needed to be removed because they were inappropriate, but they refused, and a huge court case started and they also got suspended from school. According to the students, their right to wear the armbands was protected under the First Amendment, which said that they were allowed freedom of speech and expression. After going through lots of courts, the Supreme Court took the case and agreed that the students were protected.
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
The Court favored Sweat and stated that the actions were affecting Sweat’s ability to learn and should stop immediately (United States Courts,
In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and has since completely changed the course of American history. Its assurance of due process and equal protection under the law has served to ensure and defend the rights of all American citizens. It gave a new sense of hope and inspiration to the once oppressed and underrepresented individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment has persistently guided our country as it strives to satisfy its promise of freedom and equality for the nation. Over time, this Amendment has served as a basis for many cases ensuring the equal protection of all citizens.
The 13th amendment to the US constitution abolished slavery; once put in place in 1865, blacks were free people in the United States, unless they were criminals. The documentary 13th does an amazing job putting forth the correlation between mass incarceration and race. It explores the loophole within the 13th amendment which states that slavery shall not exist within the United States, unless of punishment for a crime. This allows for criminals to be “slaves” within the prison system. The documentary follows slavery and oppression of African-Americans from the time of working in the fields, to current times, where one in every 3 black men are expected to be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime.
II. NCAA Amateurism rule and the problems with it The NCAA was established on the principles of keeping collegiate athletics on the amateur level. This meant that no one could play on programs on collegiate level with people from professional teams or other leagues. The NCAA argues that amateurism is necessary to preserve academic integrity and ensure that receiving a quality education is a top priority (Treadway, 2013).
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.