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).
On June 25, 1962, a Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was decided. The lawsuit was brought to the United States Supreme Court by parents (of students who attended schools in the Herricks School District) who complained that a nondenominational prayer instituted by the New York Board of Regents in their district was unconstitutional. The parents argued that the prayer, although optional, violated their First Amendment Rights. When the 6-1 (two justices did not vote) decision was made, it was ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. One concurring opinion was given, and the single judge that did not vote the same as the rest provided
On July 1986, by a majority vote of 7 against 2, the United States Supreme Court delivered a determinant opinion that will put a limitation on the exercise of the freedom of speech at school. In that opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger set up a new rule opening the door for a legal limitation of the freedom of speech at school. Even though the Supreme Court recognized the validity of the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community District School’ ruling, however; the justices decided to draw a clear line between the minors and the adults concerning the full exercise of the right of freedom of expression. Simply put, the opinion ruled that the extension of the
This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students. Kinney Lau and other non-English speaking students brought forth a lawsuit trying to force the San Francisco Unifed School District (SFUSD) to provide support for all non-English-speaking Chinese students with a bilingual education program so they could proficiently learn English. The case also attaches “strings” to school districts that receive federal financial assiatance.
In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for students to be responsible and show parents and teachers how they can, and will, develop into being a more independent student. They ought to declare and spectate everyone why they deserve to be independent. This is why i will speak out for all students and write a Declaration of Independence. To explain that students should and will be more independent in their everyday lifestyles.
A public school cannot suspend a student with no notice or hearing because it infringes on his or her rights. The specific amendments broken by the public school officials are primarily the fifth and sixth. Public schools are not allowed to take away rights and liberties given to the American people. The suspended student was denied his rights to due process and his right to formal informant of crime committed.
The reasoning behind that decision was that the provision allowing students to absent themselves from that activity did not make that law constitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). Justice Douglas concurred with what the court had found. He took a broader view of the Establishment Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the establishment clause (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). I would agree with this decision in some ways, but there are some that I do not agree with. I don’t agree that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because you are not praying to anything or anyone. I would agree that the nondenominational prayer does violate this clause. The reason being is that schools are not allowed to require that there is to be a prayer because it comes down to the separation of church and state. Church is where you can go and pray, as well as practice your religion. The state, however, cannot mandate that there be prayer in school because it is not something that they can do because of the First
In the “Bethel School District v. Fraser” case, Fraser believed that the school violated his first amendment “freedom of speech” rights. Fraser gave a speech with some inappropriate content in it and the school gave him a three day suspension because two teachers warned him before he gave the speech. Fraser took it to court and the justices said they would shorten the suspension and let him have his right to speak at graduation because the school was taking away his freedom of speech.
Gathercoal (2001) reminds school leaders that the Supreme Court has upheld schools may limit an individual’s right to an education if they violate one of four underlying responsibilities. Students right to an education can be limited if they willfully cause property loss or damage. They must follow rules which have a legitimate educational purpose. Students rights can also be limited if they pose a health and safety risk to themselves or others. Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process.
In 1965, a group of students who wore a black band on their arm to protest the war in Vietnam. The faculty in the school requested them to remove the band and when they refused, the district suspended the students. When they took the case to Supreme Court and they sided with the students stating students and teachers cannot "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court did not grant the a right to “unlimited” self expression and said that if the expression of the student does not disrupt others in school, it can be done, worn, or followed through with in any way that can be done in that manner.
According to a United States Supreme Court ruling, public schools have the ability to restrict students’ First Amendment rights. This became true in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case when Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhart wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. In order to understand Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case one must establish the history, examine the case, and explain the impacts.
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. The Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District ruling strengthened the idea that high schoolers are protected by the first amendment and are allowed to express themselves freely.
Although the first amendment guarantee’s freedom of speech, the guarantee is not absolute. There should be an expectation to the first amendment. Another aspect of freedom of speech is expressive conduct (such as flag burning). The supreme court has grappled with whether laws banning expressive conduct are permissible under the first amendment. This court is in favor of Texas because, is it not right to burn a flag, with military people died to protect our flag, it is a symbol of freedom, and it will cause more problems in the world.
The case of Kiryas Joel v. Grummet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) was a case in which the New York Village of Kiryas Joel, a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim, and its incorporators drew its boundaries under the state’s general village incorporation law to exclude all but Satmars (Find Law, 2015) in a separate district.