Skip to main content

Shara Johnson's School Law Page               



United State Supreme Ct.

    
1.  Identification:                                Meyer v. Nebraska
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            1923
                                                            262 US 390
 
2.  Synopsis:
In 1920 Raymond Parpart, a 10 year old boy, was enrolled in Rober T. Meyers class at Zion Parochial School. Within the classroom Meyer was teaching the children to read in German. Beings this was against the Nebraska law that maintains that no modern foreign language shall be taught until after the eighth grade Meyer was convicted of a misdemeanor. 
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): Meyer was within his rights while teaching his class. He had parents who were aware and supportive of the education that the children were receiving within his classroom.
  • Defendant (Appellee):  The state of Nebraska believes that Meyer has broken the law involving the teaching of foreign languages to children before the eighth grade.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The original decision was reversed; the court found that Meyers' liberty? within the Due Process Clause had been infringed upon. 
 
5.  Implication of the Decision: Meyer v Nebraska was fundamental in allowing parents to begin having some direction with their child?s education. This decision implies that if something (foreign language) is available within a school system and the parents are supportive then it is legally okay for this educational experience to take place.

              

1.  Identification:                                New Jersey v T.L.O
                                                            United States Supreme Court
                                                            1985
                                                            469 US 325
 
2.  Synopsis:
A teacher walked into the women?s restroom to discover that two female students were smoking cigarettes against school policy. The teacher reported the incident to the administration, Mr. Choplick, who proceeded to question the two girls. T.L.O denied smoking in the restroom; which prompted a search of her purse by Mr. Choplick. During the search he came upon a pack of cigarettes. However, while looking for the cigarettes he also noticed rolling papers, which implied the use of marijuana. After further searching Mr. Choplick uncovered marijuana, a pipe, a collection of small plastic bags, and a large sum of money. A list of students who owed T.L.O money and two letters that implied drug dealing were also uncovered. T.L.O later confessed which immediately resulted in charges being brought against her. However, T.L.O and her family argue that the search conducted by Mr. Choplick violated T.L.O?s rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): The state argues that there was reasonable suspicion by Mr. Choplick that a school policy had been broken.
  • Defendant (Appellee): T.L.O claims that her Fourth Amendment rights were invaded and because of this all evidence that was uncovered during the search should be concealed.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The court sided with the state saying that if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed, or that the search is required to have school order and to enforce school policies that it is legal and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because Mr. Choplick was reasonable suspicious that T.L.O would have evidence in her purse to prove that she had been smoking, he had the right to search her purse; it just happened that the rest of the evidence was uncovered during the previous search.
 
5.  Implication of the Decision:
Administrators have the right to search a student if the administration has reasonable suspicion that a search of a student will uncover evidence that the student has violated a specific rule or law.

    

1.  Identification:                                Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            1969
                                                            393 US 503
 
2.  Synopsis:
In 1969 a group of students and adults in Des Moines, IA united to show their displeasure with happenings in Vietnam. They decided to show their objection by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and fasting for two different days in December. The administration learned of the upcoming demonstration and quickly put into policy requiring students wearing such armbands to remove them or else face suspension until the armband is removed. Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker came to school with the armbands and were all sent home. They did not return to school until after the New Year. Their fathers filed a complaint arguing that such policy alienates their First Amendment rights to free speech.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): The suit was brought about to receive nominal damages on behalf of John and Mary Beth Tinker. The plaintiff is citing deprivation of First Amendment rights.
  • Defendant (Appellee): The Des Moines Board of Education argued that they acted to prevent a disturbance within their school.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court reversed the original decision supporting the school district.
 
5.  Implication of the Decision:
Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District brought about many issues regarding when it is appropriate for a student to express themselves through actions and speech. From this case came what is known as the Tinker Test. The tinker test is used to determine when a school may lawfully regulate a student?s speech. The Tinker test says that administration may forbid student speech that causes, or rationally could be expected to cause, material harm and commotion within the schools normal operation or if it invades the rights of another member of the schools body.

    

1.  Identification:                                Wisconsin v. Yoder
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            1972
                                                            406 US 205
 
2.  Synopsis:
Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy are members of the Amish community in Green County, WI. The compulsory school-attendance law in Wisconsin is that children must attend public / private school until the age of 16. Yoder refused to send his children to public school after the completion of the eighth grade. The above mentioned were charged and convicted of violating the compulsory school-attendance law. Yoder argued that being required to send his children to school after the eighth grade invaded his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He stated that in doing so goes against their religion, their way of life, and endangers the souls of their families. Professional witnesses backed the religious testimony by Yoder and everything he had stated was found to be true within the Amish community.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  •  Plaintiff (Appellant): The state wanted to enforce their compulsory school-attendance law. The state wanted to ensure that the education of the children in question was complete through the age of 16
  • Defendant (Appellee): Mr. Yoder wanted his children to receive a basic education through the eighth grade. Because of religious beliefs and cultural traditions he wanted his children to remain within the educational experience of the family and community after completion of the eighth grade.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The court sided with Mr. Yoder that forcing his children to attend school after the eighth grade did in fact infringe on his families First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.     
 
5.  Implication of the Decision:
Children that are of the Amish faith are exempt from the compulsory schooling law regarding attendance after the eighth grade.

 

 

1.  Identification:                                Pickering v. Board of Education
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            1968
                                                            391 U.S. 563
 
2.Synopsis: Marvin L Pickering was dismissed from his position as an educator after having had a letter published in the local newspaper voicing his personal opinions. The letter was voicing his dissatisfaction with the school district over recent financial issues. After a full hearing the board dismissed Marvin Pickering stating that his actions were detrimental to the district.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): Pickering argues that his freedom of speech under the First Amendment was violated.
  • Defendant (Appellee): The board of education is asking for his dismissal on the grounds that he violated the interests of the school.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The original decision was reversed; the court found that Pickering?s rights were indeed violated under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
 
5.  Implication of the Decision: Teachers may voice their opinions on any matter including educational issues. However the speech cannot be excessive and go against the school?s educational mission.

  

1.  Identification:                                Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            2002
                                                            536 U.S. 639
 
2.  Synopsis:
Due to the dismal outlook that most low-income/ urban families had with the poor performing inner city schools Cleveland City School District established a pilot program to allow families to choose the school that is best suited for their child. The scholarship program provides financial aid to families through the eighth grade to choose the public or private school of their parents? choosing. Secondly, the program supplies tutorial aid to those who remain in the public schools in inner city Cleveland. The question before the supreme court is whether this pilot program violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): Claiming that the pilot program created violates ?effect? of advancing or inhibiting religion within the Establishment clause.
  • Defendant (Appellee): Maintains that the Ohio program doesn?t breach the Establishment clause and that it?s effects are neutral with respect to religion.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The court backed the Ohio program stating that the program is neutral and that it provides genuine choice among varying schools.    
 
5.  Implication of the Decision: Pilot programs such as the one mentioned in this case are legal and binding provided that they don't advance a religious cause or inhibit a religion.
 
1.  Identification:                                School District of Abington Township v. Schempp
                                                            Supreme Court of the United States
                                                            1963
                                                            374 U.S. 203
 
2.  Synopsis:
Roger and Donna Schempp attended Abington Senior High School. Each school day would begin with a reading from the bible followed by recitation of the Lords Prayer during opening exercises. Participation in the exercises are voluntary, the student may ask to leave the classroom or remain and not participate. The Schempp family held that the Christian religious doctrines that were being displayed didn’t consent with the teachings of their religious beliefs. The father, Edward Schempp, didn’t ask for his children to not participate citing that he worried that they would be harmfully affected and thought differently by their classmates and teacher.
 
3.  Contentions of the Litigants.
  • Plaintiff (Appellant): Under section 1516 religious exercises will be held in every school on every school day.
  • Defendant (Appellee): The Schempp family claims that the religious exercises that are taking place violate their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
4.  Decision of the Court:
The court sided with the Schempp family citing that the daily exercises are in violation of the Establishment Clause.   
 
5.  Implication of the Decision: The state will remain neutral in matters of religion.
 
 
 
 

 

         

   

n98