A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked a directive allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms as per their gender identity. The ruling was pronounced before schools are scheduled to open for the next academic year. Texas and 11 other states had sued the Department of Education and Department of Justice over the directive which extends the Title IX law to interpret restrictions over bathroom use in accordance with birth genders as sexual discrimination. US District Judge Reed O 'Connor said that the federal education law in Title IX was not ambiguous about the definition of sex determined at birth. He wrote in his order that interpreting Title IX to change the definition of sex to include gender identity was outside the enforcement purview of federal government.
Vitale was greeted with conflicting emotions. While some saw it as a victory for religious freedom, some Christians were outraged that the government shunned God by banning school wide prayer. Political and religious leaders have claimed that the case has promoted atheism and that moral values have been undermined by removing religion from public education. These people wrongly believe that the ruling outlawed all prayer in public schools when it prohibits schools from writing or choosing a specific prayer and encouraging all students to partake in reciting it. Even today, over fifty years since the case, the opposition of the ruling continues to rail against the “godless public schools” and complain about how the Supreme Court “kicked God out of the schools.” These critics blame the absence of prayer in schools for tragedies such as school shootings and drug
Kitzmiller v. Dover brought up a global attention. The case rose in 2004, when the Dover Area District High School Board tried to add religion to a science class by masking it under scientific gear of adisclaimer promoting the “Intelligent Design”, and it was supposed to be a mandatory part of the school’s biology class curriculum. High School students’ parents sued the school to ban the Intelligent Design from biology curriculum. The trial took six weeks. Judge Jones made his decision by ruling out the Intelligent Design from being considered as science, and by stating that the Board’s disclaimer was violating the First Amendment and the PA Constitution.
In no way are the rules set by our government vague enough to let Hosni Nassef’s actions be considered to be okay and permissible. There would be no argument at all had the federal government been allowed to protect its people as it sees fit. The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which made it illegal for an individual to possess a firearm in a school zone, was established by our government to protect children from gun violence, which made perfect sense. In 1995, the Act was invalidated by the Supreme Court Case during the case of “United States v. Lopez”. Essentially, what happened was Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth grade student of Edison High School of San Antonio, Texas, brought a .38 caliber revolver into school, claiming he was delivering
The case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is an important piece of history regarding the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and how it applies to students ' right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", and the Supreme Court has the job to judge whether or not the laws violate the Constitutional Amendments. The case was the result of three students suspended from school for wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War. According the U.S. Supreme Court, students do not shed their rights as American citizens when the students enter the school, leading the students to wear what they desire as long as it does not disrupt class. The
Frederick case where a student got punished just for holding up a sign saying “bong hits for jesus” in a school event. This would of have been perfectly fine if he was outside of school but since he was at school the court ruled in favor of Morse because the students do have freedom of speech but not to a point where they are promoting drug use in a school is allowed. Some say that the ruling was not fair because it violates the first amendment but another case had already set a precedent where students in school only have limited freedom of speech instead of the belief ultimate freedom of speech where you can say whatever you want with no
It is, in my opinion, completely ignorant to believe that students don’t see these types of banners elsewhere or that they have never been exposed to such announcements. It is absurd to think that with the displaying of the banner students would be influenced to immediately use drugs. I believe it was a violation of the first amendment, which states the freedom of speech. The incident occurred on a public sidewalk and was not disrupting the school system in any possible way. Unfortunately with a very shady response, the judge answered to the court case by stating that the, “compelling interest in prohibiting/punishing student speech that reasonably could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use” (United States Courts) was enough to “enforce the school board 's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment,” as said by Mr. Morse.
A 6-3 vote in favor of New Jersey was all it took to strike down TLO’s request to suppress the evidence as well as her confession. In previous cases, courts have ruled that school officials were exempt from the restrictions put in place due to their need to enforce authority over their students. The Supreme Court decided that in this case, the exclusionary clause would apply to school officials. This means that because they’re school officials, they don’t have to have as many means to perform a search on the students because students should have a decreased expectation of privacy. Their decision meant that the evidence found in TLO’s purse along with her confession had to reason to be excluded because her 4th Amendment rights were not violated.
In this 7-2 case was the first to Craig v. Boren, which stated that Oklahoma having two different drinking ages for males and females was unconstitutional as it did not provide justification as to why the genders had different standards (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a). Justice Thomas did not concur or descent in this case but instead chose to abstain from ruling on the case due to the fact that his son was a cadet at VMI at the time of the case (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Doing this, Justice Thomas made sure his personal opinions and thoughts would not influence his decision and therefore he upheld the integrity of the Supreme
Though prayer can seem innocent enough, Smiths’ action of praying while performing the duty of a judge violates the establishment clause; seeing how Roger Robber is being subjected to Smiths’ beliefs. As made evident in the 1992 decision in the case of Lee v. Weisman, public schools, which function under the supervision of the government, cannot perform religious invocations and benedictions during a graduation, as doing so violates the establishment clause. A public school sponsoring a prayer at a graduation is considered “excessive government entanglement” when the objective is to create a prayer that is to be used in a formal religious exercise, which students, for all practical purposes are obliged to attend, resulting in a violation of the establishment clause. Going back to Smith, his inclusion of prayers while serving the government shows that there is no separation between church and state. This is a clear violation, seeing how Robber is placed in a highly religious environment, meaning that religious beliefs are likely to take the place of the law and completely disregarding the