Law & Order: SCE

Supreme Court Edition

Group 1 - Part A�Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• As part of a plan formulated by a group of adults and students in Des Moines, Iowa, John Tinker, a public high school student, and his sister Mary Beth Tinker, a public middle school student, wore black armbands to their schools to publicize their objections to the Vietnam War and their support of a truce. When knowledge of the plan reached the local school board, they adopted a regulation to suspend any student wearing such an armband in order to avoid potential conflict. The students wore their armbands anyway, were asked to remove them, and, upon their refusal, were sent home on suspension.
• Through their father, they filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa seeking damages and asking for an injunction restraining school authorities from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the complaint, upholding school authorities on the ground that their actions were reasonable in order to prevent a disturbance of school discipline.

Group 2 - Part A�New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

• A teacher discovered a fourteen-year-old freshman girl smoking in a school restroom, in violation of school policy, and brought her to the office. Upon questioning by an assistant vice principal, the student denied smoking, claiming she did not smoke, whereupon the principal asked to see her purse. When opened, he found a pack of cigarettes which he removed and noticed a pack of cigarette rolling papers closely associated with marijuana use. He then proceeded to conduct a more thorough search of the purse and found a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of plastic bags, a substantial quantity of one dollar bills and two letters implicating the student in marijuana dealing.
• In a New Jersey juvenile court all of the above evidence was admitted, and the court upheld the school official’s position of properly conducting a purse search based upon reasonable suspicion that the student had broken school policy. The student was declared delinquent and sentenced to a year’s probation. The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s finding that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, but it vacated the adjudication of delinquency and remanded a determination of whether the student willingly waived her Fifth Amendment rights. On appeal of the Fourth Amendment ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the appellate court judgment was reversed to favor the student. This court ordered a suppression of the evidence found in her purse, holding the search to be unreasonable.

Group 3 - Part A�Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

• At a student assembly in the late spring of his senior year in high school, Matthew Fraser made a nominating speech for a friend running for a student government office. Throughout the entire speech the candidate was referred to in terms of sexual metaphors, despite the fact that several teachers who reviewed the speech suggested to Fraser that it was “inappropriate” and could result in “severe consequences” if delivered. Students in the assembly, which included many fourteen-year-olds, were there by choice as they could opt to attend a study hall instead. Behavior in reaction to the speech included hooting, suggestive gestures, and embarrassment. A school disciplinary rule prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene language and gestures.
• The morning after the assembly, school authorities notified Fraser that his speech was a violation of the disciplinary rule and suspended him for three days. Additionally, they removed his name from a list of potential graduation speakers. A school district hearing examiner upheld the decision but dropped one day of suspension. Fraser’s father brought an action against the school district in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The district court held that the student’s rights under the First and Fourth Amendments were violated, awarded him damages, and enjoined the school district from preventing him from speaking at graduation. Fraser’s class then chose him to be their graduation speaker, and he spoke at commencement.

Group 4 - Part A�Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

• In Missouri, a high school journalism class wrote and edited a school-sponsored student newspaper as part of its coursework. School board policy allowed student publications free expression of diverse viewpoints within the rules of responsible journalism as developed within the accepted regular curriculum taught by a faculty member. The teacher had final review of each issue prior to publication. On the masthead it was noted that the paper was a student-run publication with “all rights implied by the First Amendment.”
• Prior to the last issue’s publication in May, a new faculty advisor took over the journalism class. Editor Cathy Kuhlmeier submitted proofs to the advisor who, in turn, submitted them to the principal. One article described pregnancy experiences of three students and raised the principal’s concern about their anonymity and the invasion of their boyfriends’ and parents’ privacy. He also questioned the appropriateness of references made to sexual activity and birth control for the younger students at the school. Another article on the impact of divorce upon students included critical comments by an identified student about her father. Although the student’s name was to be eliminated in the final copy, the principal believed the student’s parents should have had an opportunity to respond to the remarks and given consent for publication. Accordingly, due to the lack of time to rearrange the paper and meet the printing deadline, the advisor was directed to withhold from publication the two pages containing the offensive articles.
• The staff, led by their editor, filed suit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the school district and school officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages based upon the violation of their First Amendment rights. Although the district court denied an injunction, the United States Eighth Circuit reversed the decision, stating that the newspaper was a public forum and censorship could occur only under potential tort liability.

Group 5 - Part A�Virginia v. United States (1996)

• In 1839 a small military academy for men was established in Lexington, Virginia for the dual purposes of providing a higher education and developing military leaders to serve the nation. Over the years many traditions were established, and frequently several generations of young men within families attended. To produce citizen soldiers, a physically and mentally grueling program evolved. The system involved, in part, humiliation implemented by upperclassmen upon first year students. Out of this regimented environment, Virginia Military Institute (VMI) fashioned well-disciplined officers trained to uphold the honor and pride of their school and nation. Many of its graduates have distinguished themselves in various United States wars. Two renowned graduates were Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and George C. Marshall.
• For a variety of reasons, the institute was placed under the state’s mantle some years ago and became a public university eligible for state funding. VMI continued to maintain itself as a single-sex school, however, long after all other single-sex public universities in Virginia ceased to exist. In 1990 the Bush administration Justice Department acted on complaints it received from young women and sued the state of Virginia over VMI’s admission policy. Since the university received tax dollars, the argument was made that women should have equal access with men to this special educational opportunity now denied. To counter this argument, the state of Virginia devised the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership at nearby Mary Baldwin, a private women’s college, in the fall of 1995. In general, VMI believed its program was too arduous for women, and the Institute, and they did not want to weaken it in order to admit them. A strong alumni supported this position, as did the state. The Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that education for sexes can be “separate but substantially comparable” and endorsed Virginia’s two separate programs.

Group 6 - Part A�Morse v. Fredericks (2007)

• In this case, a high school senior was suspended for holding up a sign “Bong Hits for Jesus” at the Olympic Torch Relay in Juneau, Alaska, before he had even arrived at school for the day. Although there was no evidence of disruption, the school justified its action by claiming that the student's sign contained a pro-drug message that was inconsistent with the school's educational mission to discourage drug use. Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?

Group 7 - Part A�Chandler v. McMinnville School District (1992)

• In 1990 school teachers in McMinnville, Oregon, went on a lawful strike to protest for better pay and working conditions. The school fired them and replaced them. Many students were upset by this action, and two students, Chandler and Depweg, were especially angry because their fathers were among the dismissed teachers. They wore buttons to school – and distributed them to other students that said, “No Scabs,” “I’m not listening to scab,” “Do scabs bleed?,” “Scab we will never forget,” “Students united for a fair settlement,” and “We want our real teacher back.” (Scab is a derogatory term for someone who takes a job of a striking worker). The two students were suspended for refusing to take the buttons off. They brought a First Amendment action alleging that they had a right to wear the buttons and that they were disciplined for protesting the school’s actions.

Group 8 - Part A�Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Group 9 - Part A�Goss v. Lopez (1975)

• Nine students at two high schools and one junior high school in Columbus, Ohio, were given 10-day suspensions from school. The school principals did not hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions, and Ohio law did not require them to do so. The principals' actions were challenged, and a federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Question: Did the imposition of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Group 10 - Part A�Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

• Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Group 11 - Part A�Westside Community Schools v. Mergers (1990)

• The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing the Establishment Clause, Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens and several other students sued. The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages. Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a Christian club consistent with the Establishment Clause, thereby rendering the Equal Access Act unconstitutional?

Group 12 – Part A�Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

• In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Group 13 – Part A�Roper v. Simmons (2005)

• Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was seventeen years of age. In the 1988 case Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age fifteen or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (Basically, society standards had changed and executing a minor under 18 was no longer acceptable to society) Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment?