Briefing Five Court Cases, Case Study Example

Case #1

Citation: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Argued: December 9, 1952

Reargued: December 8, 1953

Decided May 17, 1954

Votes: 9-0: Equal protection.

Facts of Case: African-American children were not allowed to enter the public school systems that white children attended under the laws that permitted the segregation of schools of races. The white and black school systems reached equality in regard to buildings, school curriculum, qualifications, and teacher salaries. The case was decided in conjunction with Briggs v. Elliot and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County. (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014)

Legal Issue: main focus was in regard to the question of whether segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection of the 14^th Amendment.

Legal Basis for Decision: The case resulted in the Supreme Court in favor that the segregation did in fact violate the 14^th amendment.  In their decision, they indicated that segregation had a detrimental effect on minority children and that the phrase, “separate but equal” was wrong.  Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” had no place.  Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (American Bar Association, 3).  The outcome of this case therefore started much controversy and changed the education system.  The only problem that occurred from this ruling was that the decision made in 1954 did not indicate how the desegregation of schools would be attained.  One year later, in 1955, the case was reargued. Ten years later in 1964, only around 2 percent of the segregated school districts actually were desegregated.  (American Bar Association, 4).

Quotable: “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” (FindLaw, 2014)

Writing for: Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.

Case #2

Citation:  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Agued:  November 12, 1968

Decided:  February 24, 1969

Votes: 7 Votes for Tinker, 2 votes against

Facts of the Case: In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Idaho in the meeting of the home of 16-year old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing for their support in the truce of the war in Vietnam.  The students agreed to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve.  The principals of the school the students met on December 14 and created a policy stating that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove and refusal would result in suspension.  On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt refused and were sent home.  The following day, John Tinker did the same thing and was sent home again.  The students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest.  The parents of the students sued the school district for violating the student’s right of expression and filed an injunction to prevent the school for disciplining the students; the district dismissed the case and indicated that the school’s actions were reasonable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this decision.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2013a)

Legal Issues: Amendment 1: Speech, Press and Assembly.

Legal Basis for the Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that armbands represented pure speech that is separate from the actions or conduct.  In addition, the Court held that students did not lose their First Amendment rights of the freedom of speech when entering school property.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2013a)

Quotable: In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.(The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2013a)

Writing for: Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority to the court.

Writing dissenting opinion: Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White wrote two separate concurring opinions.

Case #3

Citation: New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Argued: March 28, 2984

Reargued: October 2, 1984

Decided: January 15, 1985

Votes: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against

Facts of the Case: T.L.O. was a 14-year old freshman at Piscataway High School in New Jersey.  The student was caught smoking marijuana in a school bathroom by a teacher.  The principal questioned her and asked to see what was inside her purse.  The principal found a pack of cigarettes, a list of students who owed her money and a small amount of marijuana.  Her case was sent to trial and Terry was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on probation for one year.  Her case was appealed indicating that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014b)

Legal Issues: Amendment 4

Legal Basis for the Decision: No decision.  In the anonymous opinion, the Supreme Court restored the case for reargument.  In addition, the Court asked that both parties argue the additional question of whether or not the principal violated the Fourth Amendment.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014b)

Quotable: “Students should have legitimate expectations of privacy, but that must be balanced with the school’s responsibility for maintaining an environment in which learning can take place.” (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014b)

Writing dissenting opinion: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent in regard to New Jersey not to include the Fourth Amendment question in the petition.

Case #4

Citation:Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Argued: March 29, 2000

Decided: June 19, 2000

Votes: 6 votes for Doe, 3 vote(s) against

Facts of the Case: A student elected as the Santa Fe High School’s student council chaplain said a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game prior to 1995.  Two families filed a suit against this practice under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  As the suit was pending, the District Court adopted a new policy permitting the student initiated and student led prayers at the home games.  In addition, two student elections were also implemented to determine if the prayers should be said at games and to elect the person to deliver them.  Furthermore, the District Court modified the policy to permit only a nonsectarian prayer.  The Court of Appeals found that the football prayer policy was in fact invalid.  The District petitioned for a writ of certiorari, indicating that it did not violate the Establishment Clause due to private student speech. (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014c)

Legal Issues: Establishment of Religion

Legal Basis for the Decision: The decision was made that held that the District’s policy permitting student led and student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.  The Court decided that the prayers were not public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at a sponsored school related event.  In addition, the Court decided that the District’s policy involved government endorsement for the delivery of the prayer at the school event; therefore, the speech was not “private”.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014c)

Quotable: Writing for: Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the 6-3 opinion.

Writing dissenting opinion: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent to the Courts opinion.

Case #5

Citation: Veronia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)

Argued: March 28, 1995

Decided: June 26, 1995

Votes: 6 votes for Vernonia School District, 3 vote(s) against

Facts of the Case: An investigation led to the discovery that high school student athletes in the Veronia School District were participating in drug use.  The School officials were concerned that the drug use would result in an increase in sports related injuries.  Therefore, the Veronia School District of Oregon implemented a Student Athlete Drug Policy which consisted of random drug testing of student athletes.  James Acton, a student, was denied participation on the football team when his parents refused to consent to the testing.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,  2013b)

Legal Issues: Fourth Amendment.

Legal Basis for Decision: In the case of the high school students who are under the supervision of the State during the school hours, the privacy interests of urine samples are negligible since the conditions are similar to that of public restrooms.  In addition, the results of the tests are only viewed by limited authority figures.  Furthermore, the safety of the minors under the supervision is minimal to none in regard to intrusion of student-athlete privacy.  (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2013b)

Quotable: The reasonableness of a search is judged by “balancing the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”(The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2013b)

Writing for: Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the 6-3 opinion.

References

American Bar Association. “Dialogue on Brown vs. the Board of Education”. 2003.<http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/…/brown/brownvboard.pdf>

FindLaw.  (2014).  U.S. Supreme Court.  Retrieved from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483.

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2014a). Brown v. Board of Education (I). <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1>.

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2014b).NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O.. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_712>.

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2014c). Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_62>.

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2013a).  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2013b). Vernonia School District v. Acton. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590