Name of Case: Tinker v.

Des Moines

What amendment does this case relate to?

What’s the big picture concept?

Why is this case important to you?

What are the pros of the ruling in this case? What are the cons in the ruling of this case?

Name of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O.

What amendment does this case relate to?

What’s the big picture concept?

Why is this case important to you?

What are the pros of the ruling in this case? What are the cons in the ruling of this case?
1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?

1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?
1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?

1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?
1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?

1. Name of Case:

2. What amendment does this case relate to?

3. What’s the big picture concept?

4. Why is this case important to you?

5. What are the pros of the ruling in this case? 6. What are the cons in the ruling of this case?
 PART A: INSTRUCTIONS (1 CASE)
1. Read the case that you and your partner have been provided with.
2. As you read, highlight key points from each section of the case: Background, Ruling, and Impact.
a. Some questions to consider as you highlight:
i. What piece of information does somebody need in order to understand the case?
ii. What do my classmates need to know in order to complete the graphic organizer?
iii. Is this piece of information critical for my understanding of the case?
3. Take your main points and summarize them on your presentation poster.
a. You should find at least three main points per section.
b. Write the amendment number that you believe the case is related to.
c. Remember that your presentation will be used to educate your classmates.

PART B: INSTRUCTIONS (4 CASES)

1. Use the court case in front of you to complete the graphic organizer.
a. Write the name of the court case.
b. Write the amendment that the case is related to.
c. Write down the big-picture concept, such as corporal punishment, freedom of speech,
illegal search and seizure. If you are confused, then raise your hand and ask!!!
d. Answer why the case is important to you—that is, what do the results of this case do, or not
do, for you?
e. What are the pros, or what is the good side of this case for students?
f. What are the cons, or what is the bad side of this case for students?
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)
Issue: Freedom of Speech at School
Bottom Line: You Have the Right To Express Yourself—Up to a Point

Background
In December 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black
armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. School officials
told them to remove the armbands, and when they refused, they were suspended (John,
15, from North High; Mary Beth, 13, from Warren Harding Junior High; and Chris, 16, from
Roosevelt High). With their parents, they sued the school district, claiming a violation of
their First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

Ruling
The Supreme Court sided with the students. Students and teachers don't "shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," the
Court said.

The Court did not, however, grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said
First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school's need to keep order: As
long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the
rights of others, it's acceptable. Regarding the students in this case, "their deviation
consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth," the Court said. "They
caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no
disorder."

Impact
In 1986, applying the "disruption test" from the Tinker case, the Supreme Court upheld
the suspension of Matthew Fraser, a 17-year-old senior at Bethel High School in Tacoma,
Washington, who gave a school speech containing sexual innuendos (Bethel School
District v. Fraser). The Court said "it is a highly appropriate function of public school
education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse."

Lower courts have relied on Tinker in rulings on school attire, allowing nose rings and
dyed hair, for example, but disallowing a T-shirt displaying a Confederate flag.

In June 2007, the Supreme Court weighed in on another student expression case,
Frederick v. Morse, ruling that schools can limit student speech that seems to advocate
illegal drug use. The case concerned Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-
Douglas High School in Alaska, who was suspended in 2002 for holding a banner that said
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" while standing across the street from the school during the Olympic
torch relay.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Issue: Privacy Rights at School
Bottom Line: Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily

Background
T.L.O. (Terry), a 14-year-old freshman at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was
caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The principal questioned her and
asked to see her purse. Inside was a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, and a small amount
of marijuana. The police were called and Terry admitted selling drugs at school.

Her case went to trial and she was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on
probation. Terry appealed her conviction, claiming that the search of her purse violated
her Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students have "legitimate expectations of
privacy," the Court said, but that must be balanced with the school's responsibility for
"maintaining an environment in which learning can take place." The initial search of
Terry's purse for cigarettes was reasonable, the Court said, based on the teacher's report
that she'd been smoking in the bathroom. The discovery of rolling papers near the
cigarettes in her purse created a reasonable suspicion that she possessed marijuana, the
Court said, which justified further exploration.

Impact
T.L.O. is the landmark case on search and seizure at school. Basically, school officials may
search a student's property if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has
been broken, or a student has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. These
are called "suspicion-based" searches. There are also "suspicionless searches" in which
everyone in a certain group is subject to a search at school.
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Issue: Student Athletes and Drug Testing
Bottom Line: Schools Can Require It

Background
James Acton, a 12-year-old seventh-grader at Washington Grade School in Vernonia,
Oregon, wanted to try out for the football team. His school required all student athletes to
take drug tests at the beginning of the season and on a random basis during the school
year. James's parents refused to let him be tested because, they said, there was no
evidence that he used drugs or alcohol. The school suspended James from sports for the
season. He and his parents sued the school district, arguing that mandatory drug testing
without suspicion of illegal activity constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth
Amendment.

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. Schools must balance students'
right to privacy against the need to make school campuses safe and keep student athletes
away from drugs, the Court said. The drug-testing policy, which required students to
provide a urine sample, involved only a limited invasion of privacy, according to the
Justices: "Students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect
intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."

The Court noted that all students surrender some privacy rights while at school: They
must follow school rules and submit to school discipline. But student athletes have even
fewer privacy rights, the Justices said, and must follow rules that don't apply to other
students. Joining a team usually requires getting a physical exam, obtaining insurance
coverage, and maintaining a minimum grade point average. And athletes must be willing
to shower and change in locker rooms, further reducing their privacy. "School sports are
not for the bashful," the Court said.

Impact
More recently, the Court has ruled in favor of school policies requiring random drug
testing for all extracurricular activities (Board of Education v. Earls, 2002).
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Issue: Affirmative Action in College
Bottom Line: Colleges Can Use Race as a Factor in Admissions

Background
In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the
University of Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point
average and good standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school's
affirmative action policy, which considered race as a factor in admissions. Michigan and
many other universities use affirmative action to increase the number of minority
students admitted. Grutter claimed that Michigan admitted less-qualified minority
applicants in violation of federal civil rights laws and the Fourteenth Amendment, which
guarantees citizens "equal protection" under the law.

Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. "Student-
body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university
admissions," the Court said. But the Court emphasized that the University of Michigan's
policy was acceptable because the school conducted a thorough review of each applicant's
qualifications and did not use a racial quota system—meaning it did not set aside a
specific number of offers for minority applicants.

Impact
Affirmative action, which has its origins in a 1961 executive order issued by President
John F. Kennedy, continues to be a contentious issue, with critics charging that it amounts
to reverse discrimination. Since 1996, voters in three states—California, Washington, and,
most recently, Michigan—have approved laws banning affirmative action in public
education, in state government hiring, and the awarding of state contracts. (At
Upfrontmagazine.com: a look at the Court's decision in June limiting the use of race in
public school integration plans.)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)
Issue: Constitutional Rights at Home
Bottom Line: The Constitution Doesn't Protect Kids from Their Parents

Background
Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived with his father, who physically abused him, in
Neenah, Wisconsin. At one point, the State Department of Social Services took custody of
Joshua but returned him after three days. Later, Joshua was hospitalized with bruises all
over his body and severe brain damage. He survived, but was permanently paralyzed and
mentally disabled. His father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison. Joshua's
mother sued the Department of Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued
that the department had a duty to protect her son under the Fourteenth Amendment,
which forbids the state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law."

Ruling
The Court ruled against Joshua and his mother. It said essentially that the Constitution
does not protect children from their parents and that therefore the government was not at
fault in Joshua's abuse.

Impact
The Supreme Court has consistently respected parents' rights to discipline their children.
But even though the government isn't required under the Constitution to protect children,
all states assume this responsibility through child protection laws. The Supreme Court has
generally deferred to state and local governments to enforce these laws and to intervene
in cases of mistreatment.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Issue: School Prayer
Bottom Line: Public schools Cannot Sponsor Religious Activity

Background
A Texas school district allowed a student "chaplain," who had been elected by fellow
students, to lead a prayer over the public address system before home football games.
Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a
violation of what's known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which
states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the school district's policy regarding prayer was
unconstitutional. Although led by students, the prayers were still a school-sponsored
activity, the Court said, and they were coercive because they placed students in the
position of having to participate in a religious ceremony.

"The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between
attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals," the Court said.
The Justices added that "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student
from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day." Impact

Since the Santa Fe decision, several lower courts have held that student-initiated group
prayer is protected under the First Amendment if it is not sponsored by the school. This is
generally accepted to mean, for instance, that a group of student athletes could pray
together before a game in the locker room, as long as the coach or other school officials
are not involved.