Term Paper on "Supreme Court Cases Case Briefs for Five"
Term Paper 5 pages (2082 words) Sources: 5
[EXCERPT] . . . .
Supreme Court CasesCase Briefs for Five (5) Supreme Court Cases
Case
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I)
Argued: December 9-11, 1952
Reargued: December 7-9, 1953
Date Decided: May 17, 1954
Vote: 9-0: Segregating learners in public schools based on their racial background deprived children from minority groups of the equal legal protection they were entitled to as envisaged by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts of the Case: During the filing of the case, state-sponsored segregation had led to the establishment of separate schools for white and black students. The plaintiffs in this particular case called for the reversal of the racial segregation policy. White and black schools at the time "approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries" (Oyez, 2011).
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether the establishment of separate public schools for students from different races was unconstitutional, i.e. whether segregation of students on the basis of race was in violation to the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal Basis for Decision: This particular case sought to challenge a doctrine which at the time was popularly known as the "separate but equal" doctrine. As per the doctrine, Alexander and Alexander (2011) observe that "equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate" (p. 1007). For this reason, of key concern was whether facilities that were re
download full paper ⤓
Quotable: "We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate-but-equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (Alexander and Alexander, 2011, p. 1007).
Writing for: Mr. Chef Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court in which Justices Minton, S. Clark, T.C., Burton, H.H., Jackson, R.H., Douglas, W.O., Frankfurter, F., Reed, S.F. And Black, H. joined the Majority.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): There was no dissenting opinion.
Case 2
Citation: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Argued: November 12, 1968
Date Decided: February 24, 1969
Vote: 7:2: Prohibiting armband wearing (as a form of passive and quiet protest) in public schools violates the rights of students with regard to free speech -- a constitutional right envisaged by the First Amendment.
Facts of the Case: Three young people decided to register their displeasure with the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. This motivated the principals of the schools they were attending at the time to put in place a policy that effectively banned students from attending school clad in similar armbands. The three students defied the policy and they were promptly suspended from school. This prompted their parents to sue the school district for what they termed a violation of the rights of the concerned students to express themselves freely. In so doing, the said parents were seeking "an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students" (Oyez, 2011). The case was however dismissed by the District Court on the grounds that the actions embraced by the school district were necessary in as far as upholding discipline was concerned (Oyez, 2011). This U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed this decision (Oyez, 2011).
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether banning armband wearing (as a form of passive and quiet protest) in public schools went against the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment which essentially guarantees freedom of speech.
Legal Basis of the Decision: The Supreme Court held that any move to regulate expression had to be backed up with valid and sound reasons that did not in any way make a mockery of constitutional provisions. For this reason, it was held that the relevance of the First Amendment spread to public schools. In the final analysis therefore, it was the decision of the Supreme Court that the students were within their rights to engage in the said protest. This is more so the case given that there was no evidence presented to prove that their actions had caused any kind of disruption or disturbance.
Quotable: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the school gate" (Imber and Geel, 2010, p. 57).
Writing for: Justice Fortas, a. delivered the opinion of the court in which Chief Justice Warren, E. And Justices Marshal, T., White, B.R., Brennan, W.J., and Douglas, W.O. joined the Majority. Justice Stewart, P. wrote a special concurrence.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Justices Black, H.L. And Harlan, J.M. filed two separate dissenting opinions.
Case 3
Citation: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Argued: October 13, 1987
Date Decided: January 13, 1988
Vote: 5-3: The move by the principal to delete two articles that in his view were inappropriate did not violate the right of students as envisaged by the First Amendment.
Facts of the Case: This particular case regarded the omission of two stories from a student newspaper, the Spectrum, on orders from the school principal. As was the norm, the newspaper had to be submitted to the principal prior to printing. On this particular occasion, the school principal was opposed to two of the stores which were scheduled to appear in the said newspaper issue and for this reason, he ordered that they be omitted. While one of the stories had a sexual theme the principal deemed inappropriate for the target audience, the other story in the principal's opinion did not give the issue at hand a balanced approach. The newspaper's editor and two of its reporters sued.
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether the decision by the principal to exclude the two stories violated students' rights as per the First Amendment.
Legal Basis for Decision: It was the decision of the Supreme Court that the principal was within his mandate to censor the two articles. In particular, the court pointed out that as per the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, schools were not under any obligation to promote (affirmatively) certain kinds of student speech (Oyez, 2011). It was the court's opinion that "educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech…" (Oyez, 2011). The court was convinced that the decision by the educators to order that the two stories be omitted was based on pedagogical concerns which were largely legitimate.
Quotable: "A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not sensor similar speech outside the school" (Patrick, Pious, and Ritchie, 2001, p. 614).
Writing for: Justice White, B.R. delivered the opinion of the court in which Justices Stevens, J.P., Rehnquist, W.H., O'Connor, S.D. And Scalia, a. joined the Majority.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Brennan, W.J. filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, T. And Blackmun, H.A. joined.
Case 4
Citation: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Argued: March 28, 1984
Reargued: October 2, 1984
Date Decided: January 15, 1985
Vote: 6-3: Subjecting a 14-year-old to a search within the school precincts (without a valid warrant) did not violate the constitution's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts of Case: Two students were found in the bathroom (within the precincts of Piscataway Township High School) smoking cigarettes. One admitted while the other who went by the name T.L.O. denied smoking. A search on T.L.O.'s purse yielded drug paraphernalia and a bag of marijuana (Oyez, 2011). The principal promptly contacted the girl's mother and the police.
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether subjecting the girl to search (without a valid warrant) was in violation of her constitutional rights.
Legal Basis for Decision: The court in this case held that a warrant need not be obtained by school authorities prior to subjecting a student who happens to be under their authority to search. Of key concern in this case was whether a student's expectation of privacy overrode the mandate of a school to enhance discipline and order. However, as Hinchey (2001) observes, the court pointed out that in addition to being justified at their inception, school searches also needed to be reasonable as far as their intrusiveness and objectiveness was concerned.
Quotable: "The legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the search" (Hinchey, 2001, p. 49).
Writing for: Justice White, B.R delivered the opinion of the court in which Justices Burger, W.E., Rehnquist, W.H. And O'Connor,… READ MORE
Quoted Instructions for "Supreme Court Cases Case Briefs for Five" Assignment:
Case Briefs for the 5 Supreme Court Cases
1- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I)
2-Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503
(1969)
3- Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
4- New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
5- Santa Fe Independent School District v. ***** Doe (2000)
Sample of how the Briefing Must be this format.
CASE # 1
Citation: Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Education Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)
(Please note that the name of a court case is always in italics!) Argued:October 13, 1982.
Date Decided: February 23, 1983
Vote: 5-4: Preferential access to a school mail system does not violate the First Amendment and the differential access afforded rival unions does not constitute impermissible content discrimination. (To find a vote in a case: go to http://www.oyez.org and click on Supreme Court Cases and then click on your case. You want to find the picture of the Supreme Court Justices for that case and click on each one. It will give their name and their vote!)
Facts of Case: A union was elected as the exclusive bargaining agent for the teachers of a school district. Per its collective bargaining agreement with the school board, only the representative union would have access to the interschool mail system and teacher mail folders. A rival union, contending the preferential-access system violated the First Amendment and the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, brought suit. The district court entered a judgment for the defendants. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the school district*****s preferential-access policy violated both the First Amendment and the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether the denial of equal access to an internal mail system within a school district to representative and rival unions violated the First Amendment and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Legal Basis for Decision: The Court adopted a three-part framework to evaluate different types of government-owned property. In traditional public forums, *****places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate,***** the rights of a state to limit expressive activity are more closely scrutinized. In such forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity and may enforce content-based restrictions only to the extent that such regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. A second category of property is the limited public forum, public property, which the state has opened for use by the public for expressive activity. Although a state is not bound to retain the open character of the property indefinitely, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply to traditional public forum. Public property that is not by tradition or designation a public forum is designated as a nonpublic forum. The state may reserve the forum for its
intended purposes as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression because public officials oppose the speaker*****s view. The Court determined that the school mail facilities at issue were a nonpublic forum. The Court based its decision on the fact that the school mail system was not open to the public and permission had to be obtained from the school principal. The record indicated that permission had been granted only to a few outside organizations, such as the YMCA, Cub Scouts, and other civic and church organizations. Citing Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 838 (1976), the court stated that this type of selective access does not transform government property into a public forum.
Quotable: *****The existence of a right of access to public property and the standard by which limitations upon such a right must be evaluated differ depending on the character of the property at issue.*****
Writing for: Justice White delivered the opinion of the court in which Burger, C.J.; Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O*****Connor, J.J., joined the Majority:
Writing dissenting opinion(s): Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, Powell and Stevens, J.J., joined. *****
How to Reference "Supreme Court Cases Case Briefs for Five" Term Paper in a Bibliography
“Supreme Court Cases Case Briefs for Five.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2013, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/supreme-court-cases-case-briefs/6951690. Accessed 3 Jul 2024.
Related Term Papers:
Supreme Court Cases Douglas v. Independent Living Term Paper
Supreme Court Cases
Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Douglas v. California Pharmacist Association, and Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (consolidated) - Docket No. 09-958, 09-1158 and… read more
Term Paper 2 pages (629 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
US Supreme Court Cases Howes, Warden v Term Paper
US Supreme Court Cases
Howes, Warden v. Fields - Docket No., 10-680
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: No person shall be… read more
Term Paper 2 pages (596 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Docket of Supreme Court Cases: Chapter 14 2006-2007 Term Paper
Political Science
The Supreme Court case that I have chosen is Scott v. Harris, 2007. In this case, which is on appeal, Scott is the Appellant and Harris is the… read more
Term Paper 1 pages (448 words) Sources: 0 Style: MLA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice
Court Case Historically, Gaines v. Canada (1938) Term Paper
Court Case
Historically, Gaines v. Canada (1938) was the first case to directly challenge school segregation. The petition was filed by Lloyd Gaines for admission to the University of Missouri… read more
Term Paper 10 pages (3457 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Panetti v. Quarterman Supreme Court Case Term Paper
United States Supreme Court Decision Brief
SCOTT LOUIS PANETTI, Petitioner-Appellant, versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT of CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal… read more
Term Paper 6 pages (2079 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Wed, Jul 3, 2024
If you don't see the paper you need, we will write it for you!
We can write a new, 100% unique paper!