Supreme Court Cases
Case Briefs for Five (5) Supreme Court Cases
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 regarded equal although separate were inherently unequal. It was decided that by dint of being segregated, children of minority groups were effectively denied equal educational opportunities and for this reason, separate facilities (regardless of their proclamations of equality) had no place in public education. It is important to note that reargument was largely founded on the need to clarify the issues that originally surrounded the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. On this front, the court found out that the said Amendment’s history could not be regarded conclusive, especially with regard to the effect it intended to have on public education. For this reason, the case was determined with the place of public education in the American society at the time in mind.
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.
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.
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 speechâ€¦” (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.
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, S.D. joined the Majority. Justices Blackmun, H.A. And Powell, L.F. wrote a special and regular concurrence respectively. In addition to voting with the majority, O’Connor S.D. joined Powel’s concurrence.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Stevens, J.P. filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, T. And Brennan, W.J joined. Brennan also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which Marshall T. joined.
Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Argued: March 29, 2000
Date Decided: June 19, 2000
Vote: 6-3: The policy adopted by the Santa Fe Independent School District with regard to allowing prayers that were led and initiated by students during sporting events went against the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Facts of Case: Students in Santa Fe Independent School District were allowed to offer prayers (mostly Christian) using PA systems before football games commenced. Two parents — one a Catholic and the other a Mormon – filed a suit in objection to this practice. During litigation, students elected to have the delivery of “invocations” during games with the said invocations being delivered by a selected spokesperson (Oyez, 2011). This policy was allowed by the District Court. The Court of Appeals however held that the said policy even in its modified state was still invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as petitioned by the District Court which argued that “its policy did not violate the Establishment Clause because the football game messages were private student speech, not public speech” (Oyez, 2011).
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether the Santa Fe Independent School District policy was in any way violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Legal Basis for Decision: It was the decision of the court that the student led prayer policy was largely unconstitutional. In that regard, the policy was effectively found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. In the court’s opinion, prayers conducted at football matches in the context of the case could be categorized as “public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related eventsâ€¦” (Oyez, 2011). As such, the said policy bore a perceived stamp of government approval and could therefore not be regarded private.
Quotable: “The delivery of a message such as the invocation here — on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student bodyâ€¦pursuant to a school policyâ€¦is not properly characterized as ‘private’ speech” (Hinchey, 2001, p. 131).
Writing for: Justice Stevens, J.P delivered the opinion of the court in which Justices O’Connor S.D., Kennedy, a.M., Souter, DH, Ginsburg, R.B. And Breyer, S.G. joined the Majority.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Chief Justice Rehnquist, W. filed a dissenting opinion in which Scalia, a. And Thomas, C. joined.
Alexander, K. & Alexander, M.D. (2011). American Public School Law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Hinchey, P. (2001). Student Rights: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Imber, M. & Geel, T.V. (2010). A Teacher’s Guide to Education Law (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oyez. (2011). Brown v. Board of Education (I). Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1/
Oyez. (2011). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21
Oyez. (2011). Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836
Oyez. (2011). New Jersey v. T.L.O. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_712
Oyez. (2011). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_62
Patrick, J., Pious, R.M. & Ritchie, D.A. (2001). The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more