YOUR CASE:
Bureau of Indian Affairs v. Knockahoma (2016)
The Knockahoma tribe of American Indians originally lived in Northern Montana. In 1830, they were relocated
to a reservation near Billings. Of the one hundred or so Knockahoma who still live on the reservation, about 20 still
practice the traditional Knockahoma religion. Their religion is a form of traditional nature and spirit worship, which
sometimes includes rituals and ceremonies. By tradition, on the day of the summer solstice, they celebrate with a
religious ceremony that includes the sacrifice of a bald eagle. After the eagle is killed at the altar by a shaman, the bird is
then cooked over a holy flame and eaten by the religious community. They believe that with this rite they ensure the
fertility of their crops and hunting grounds by pleasing Mother Earth. They also believe there will be a famine if they fail
to complete this ceremony. This tradition goes back at least 500 years of Knockahoma history.
Due to the isolation of the Knockahoma reservation, very few Americans had heard of this tribe, let alone their
religious practices, until recently. However, last year a film crew from the National Geographic Channel visited the
reservation while filming for their new series, “Faith of the First Americans.” They happened to be there on the summer
solstice and witnessed the bald eagle sacrifice. When the episode was shown on television, millions of Americans were
outraged to see their national symbol killed brutally on television as part of a religious celebration. In addition, killing a
bald eagle is a federal crime, as they are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
In reaction to the public outrage, the U.S. Congress passed a ban on the sacrifice of bald eagles, even for
religious reasons. The Bureau of Indian Affairs informed the tribal elders of the Knockahoma that this new law will
forbid them from conducting their ceremony next year. The ban was also to protect the Knockahoma from radical
environmental protestors, who had threatened to protect the eagles by “any means necessary.” To ensure compliance,
federal observers will be stationed throughout the reservation during the summer solstice next year.
The Knockahoma tribe sued the Bureau of Indian affairs, claiming that the law and its enforcement are a
violation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
LAW:
“National Symbol Protection Act” forbids the killing of a bald eagle for any reason, including religious ones, to protect
the endangered bald eagle, which is the symbol of the United States.”
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
Article 1, sec.8, “Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce…with the Indian tribes”
1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…”
PRECEDENT:
Reynolds v. U.S. (1878): Congress does have the power to ban the religious practice of polygamy (one man, multiple
wives) because the women’s civil rights are more important than religious laws.
Frank v. Alaska (1979): 1st amendment freedom of religion protects the rights of the Inuit Indians to hunt moose, even
when it is not during moose season according to state law
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery (1988): Court refused to stop construction of a new highway, over objections from
local Indian tribe that it would be built through land that was sacred to the tribe.
Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah (1993): 1st Amendment freedom of religion protects the practice of killing
live chickens as sacrifice rites for believers in the Santeria religion.
YOUR CASE: TUGENT V. UNITED STATES (2016)
Ned Tugent was one of the biggest rock stars in the world in the 1970s and continues to successfully play concerts
around the world to this day. In his career in rock and roll, Tugent has earned millions of dollars. In addition to his musical
career, Tugent loves hunting and the outdoors. He has become an outspoken advocate for gun rights and those of hunters.
Tugent currently lives on private game ranch of 10,000 acres in Texas. On his ranch are many species of deer, antelope,
elk, and buffalo, and many other animals that he enjoys hunting, as well as the animals native to Texas that naturally live on his
ranch property. One problem Tugent has encountered has been with coyotes. Those “varmints,” as he describes them, kill his
desirable animals and interfere in the purpose of his private game reserve. Whenever he encounters coyotes, he kills them
(which is legal) and also sets traps to kill them (also legal).
Despite his best efforts, Tugent’s problem with coyotes keeps increasing. He is finding more and more game killed by
these unwanted predators and they are breeding faster than he can kill them. Ned Tugent believes that he has thought of the
final solution to his predator problem. He wants to buy an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter from Boeing Aviation and use it to
hunt coyotes on his private 10,000- acre ranch. The Apache helicopter is the Army’s most advanced attack helicopter, can reach
speeds close to 200mph, and is armed with 30mm chain guns and hellfire missiles. It is also specially equipped for night vision
combat, which he values since coyotes are most active at night. Tugent believes this weapon, proven in combat in Bosnia, Iraq,
and Afghanistan, is the perfect weapon to rid his ranch of unwanted predators. He also thinks it would be a “heckuva lotta fun
gunning down those varmints!”
Boeing Aviation, which makes the Apache helicopter in Seattle, Washington, and sells them to the U.S. Army for $18
million each, has agreed to manufacture a custom one for Tugent for $25 million. Tugent has agreed and signed a contract for
the chopper, pending approval from the Department of Defense.
The problem is that the Pentagon (DOD) refuses to grant permission for Tugent (or any private citizen) to own an Apache
helicopter. They claim that the technology is too dangerous to be in the hands of a private citizen; that it should only be in the
hands of a trained Army pilot. They claim that it would be a risk to national security to allow such a purchase to take place.
Mr. Tugent has refused to back down however. He has decided to file a lawsuit against the United States government.
He calls the Army’s claim of national security, “a bunch of baloney!” He says that they are sold to the militaries of Egypt, Kuwait,
and the United Arab Emirates, and that and that it’s more likely a terrorist would get ahold of the chopper from them than at his
ranch. Tugent also claims that the government has no right to limit his right to bear arms in this way. The Governor of Texas,
Perry Ricks, has filed paperwork supporting Tugent in his lawsuit. Ricks says that private ownership of an Apache helicopter in no
way would be a violation of any Texas state law.
LAWS: “Military armament act”: The Department of Defense may designate certain weapons systems, including military
aircraft and watercraft, as for production for the U.S. military only, in order to preserve the tactical advantage of U.S.
forces on the battlefield.
“National Firearms Act”: makes illegal the transport across state lines and sale of certain weapons deemed to be too
dangerous for the public to own.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
Article 1, sec.8: “Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce…among the several states…”
2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
PRECEDENT:
United States v. Miller (1939): Congress can ban transporting and selling sawed-off shotguns across state lines
United States v. Lopez (1995): A federal law designating all schools and the areas surrounding them as “gun-free school
zones” violates the 2nd amendment and is unconstitutional
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): The Chicago law making ownership of all handguns illegal is unconstitutional, as it violates
the 2nd amendment
YOUR CASE: Little Rock v. Parton (2016)
At Bill Clinton Middle School in Little Rock, Arkansas, the school participates in Breast Cancer Awareness Week.
Many of the students, teachers, and administrators wear pink clothing during the week to raise awareness. Money is
also collected from everyone at the school to help with breast cancer research.
A group of thirty students decided that they were going to take their participation further. They got special pink
shirts made for them to wear on Friday of that week. Their t-shirts included the slogan, “Bill Clinton loves boobies!” The
students also got extra shirts printed, to sell to other students to help raise money for cancer research.
On Friday of Breast Cancer Awareness Week, seventh-grade English teacher Ms. Prudence was offended by the
slogan on the shirt and send sent Dalton Parton, one of her students, to the office. The school’s principal, Mr. Fogle,
agreed with Ms. Prudence and suspended Dalton for wearing clothing with “a vulgar and sexually suggestive slogan” in
school--a violation of the Bill Clinton M.S. dress code. He then made an announcement to all teachers to send any
student they see wearing a “Bill Clinton loves boobies” shirt to the office immediately. All thirty students were
eventually caught and suspended for 2 days of school.
Dalton Parton’s mother appealed the suspension to the school board, but was denied. The board determined
that Mr. Fogle acted properly in preserving the “educational atmosphere” of the school. Mrs. Parton then decided to
file a lawsuit on behalf of her son, claiming that the school board had violated Dalton’s constitutional rights.
LAWS:
“Educational Code of Little Rock School Board”: Principles may set rules for their buildings that best create an
atmosphere where learning can occur, while still fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect between officials
and students.”
“Dress code of Bill Clinton M.S.”: Any article of clothing or accessory that depicts lewd graphics, displays
offensive or suggestive language is forbidden.”
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
1ST Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”
PRECEDENT:
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): In the case of a student wearing clothing to protest the Vietnam War, her rights
were violated when the school suspended her. Students “do not shed their Constitutional rights when they
walk through the schoolhouse door”
Bethel v. Fraser (1986): School authorities have the right to limit sexually suggestive expression/speech by
students
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988): School authorities can limit student speech/expression that is deemed to
interfere in the educational process.
Morse v. Frederick (2007): Schools have the right to limit student speech/expression if the message delivered
is pro-illegal drugs
YOUR CASE: Volusia v. Davey (2016)
Cale Yarborough High School is a large school in Volusia County, Florida, that offers many after- school activities and
clubs. Students are allowed to start new clubs if they can get 20 students to sign a petition that they would like to participate
and if they can convince a teacher to be the faculty sponsor.
A group of students, led by a student named Allison Davey, completed these requirements and started the “Church of
One Direction” club. This club is not the first religiously-based club at the school. Already there are meetings of the Yarborough
Christian Fellowship and the Jewish Student Union.
In this club, the members worship pop singer Justin Bieber as a god. Allison Davey has written “The Gospel of Liam”,
which the club uses as its holy book. The club meetings consist of a worship service developed by Allison that includes readings
from the Gospel of Liam, testimony from the church members of how One Direction’s music has impacted their lives during the
past week, and then music videos played on a large screen while the members dance along inspired by the “Holy One Direction
Spirit.”
The Church of One Direction has become very popular. They have attracted over 200 members from Yarborough High.
The club meets every Thursday after school in the school auditorium. Membership is purely voluntary, and their activities only
take place after the academic day is over.
A parent of one of the club’s members complained to the principal when his daughter refuses to attend church on
Sunday, claiming that One Direction are now her only true gods. The parent claimed the school was promoting a religion; one
that he believes is blasphemous. The parent argued that since all the “cool” kids are in the One Direction Church, it has created
peer-pressure for other students to join if they also want to be “cool.” He demanded the club be stopped and threatened to sue
the school if it was not disbanded. The principal, afraid of being sued, agreed and ordered the Church of One Direction club
dissolved and would no longer be allowed to meet after school at Yarborough High School.
Allison Davey’s parents then filed a lawsuit against the school on behalf of their daughter. They claimed that the school
had violated her right to freedom of religion. Mr. and Mrs. Davey believed that by banning the club and forbidding them from
meeting at school, the government (in the form of a public school) had, in fact, outlawed a specific religion, in violation of the
Constitution.
LAWS:
“Educational Code of Volusia County School Board”: Principles may set rules for their buildings that best create an
atmosphere where learning can occur, while still fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect between officials and
students.”
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
1ST Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..” ”
PRECEDENT:
Widmar v. Vincent (1981): If school authorities decide to allow religious groups to use their facilities during non-school
hours, it is not a violation of the “non-establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988): School authorities can limit student speech/expression that is deemed to
interfere in the educational process.
Westside v. Mergens (1990): Students have a right to start a Christian extra-curricular club
Lee v. Weisman (1992): A school-sponsored prayer before a high school graduation violates the “non-establishment”
clause of the 1st Amendment
Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches School District (1993): School property can be used for expressly religious purposes
after hours
YOUR CASE: North Wilkesboro v. Cooper (2016)
The North Wilkesboro, North Carolina public school system has started a new policy. In order to reach the
standards required by the No Child Left Behind Act, it seeks to improve the educational atmosphere in the schools. The
school board believes that starting the school day with a prayer would improve the atmosphere in the schools. It trusts
that this action will put the students in a better state of mind for the school day, improving both the quality of education
and reducing incidents of discipline problems.
It works like this: following the Pledge of Allegiance, students are led in a prayer by their homeroom teacher.
The prayer was designed to intentionally not favor any one religion, and is addressed only to a generic “god”. It was
written by a committee that included a Catholic priest, a Baptist minister, a Mormon priest, a Methodist minister, a
Jewish rabbi, a Muslim Imam, and a Hindu priest. The community is in favor of the new policy overwhelmingly-- a poll
has shown that 95% of residents in North Wilkesboro support the school board’s prayer policy. No parent has ever
complained about the policy to the principal.
Miss Alice Cooper, a music teacher at North Wilkesboro Middle School, has objected to the policy. She claims it
is a violation of her religious liberty. As a member of the Church of Satan, Miss Cooper claims the school’s prayer is
offensive to her, as her faith is in opposition to God, any god, even one that is generic and unnamed. She believes
requiring her to lead her students in a prayer that she objects to is a violation of her constitutional rights. When the
school board denied her protest, and fired her without pay for her refusal to comply with school policy. Cooper filed a
lawsuit claiming she was wrongfully fired for her religious beliefs.
LAWS:
“Resolution of North Wilkesboro School Board”: A school-wide prayer shall be developed, consulting diverse religious
officials, to foster a bond between students and school officials to assist their educational mission
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
1ST Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof...”
Article 6, clause 3: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.”
PRECEDENT:
Edgerton Bible v. Wisconsin (1896): A school violated the non-establishment clause by having students read only from a
protestant bible; refusing to include a Catholic bible in the curriculum
Engel v. Vitale (1962): A short prayer recited at the beginning of the school day violates the 1st amendment “nonestablishment” of religion
Abingdon v. Shempp (1962): Organized bible readings in school at the beginning of the day are a violation of 1st
amendment “non-establishment” of religion
Lee v. Weisman (1992): A school-sponsored prayer before a high school graduation violates the “non-establishment”
clause of the 1st Amendment
YOUR CASE: Fairfax County Schools v. Wong (2016)
Students at Sprawlburbia High School in Northern Virginia started the “Korean Culture Club,” where students
meet to learn and experience the culture of Korea. Sometimes they listen to Korean music, eat Korean food, or watch
Korean television programs and movies.
They also invite guest speakers to the club from the Korean-American community to educate themselves more
about Korean culture and history. In the past, speakers have included owners of Korean restaurants, the ambassador
from South Korea, and Korean-American athletes and entertainers. Hearing of the club, a representative from the
consulate of North Korea contacted Mr. Trotsky, the club’s sponsor, and volunteered to speak to the club about North
Korean culture. In the name of fairness, Mr. Trotsky agreed to have the North Korean representative, Kim Ho , speak at
the school during a club meeting after school hours.
When Mr. McCarthy, the principal of Sprawlburbia High, learned of the North Korean’s scheduled appearance,
he immediately banned Mr. Kim from speaking and disbanded the Korean culture club. He said the school would be
endorsing a brutal, Communist dictatorship if they allowed Mr. Kim to speak. Mr. McCarthy went further, ordering the
Korean Culture Club to be disbanded for attempting to organize an Anti-American activity.
The parents of the club’s President, Jimmy Wong , complained to Mr. McCarthy that he was acting unfairly, and
discriminating against Korean-Americans by disbanding the students’ club. When the principal would not budge from
his position, Mr. Wong filed a lawsuit against the school. Mr. Wong’s complaint was that the school had
unconstitutionally limited the students’ 1st amendment rights of free speech and free assembly.
LAWS:
“Resolution of Fairfax County School Board”: Secondary schools should provide a variety of extra-curricular
activities to allow students opportunities to explore their academic interests and to provide service to the
surrounding community.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
1ST Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people to
peacefully assemble
PRECEDENT:
Whitney v. California (1927): Upheld the conviction of a communist who gave a speech calling for the
overthrow of the U.S. government; his speech was not protected by the 1 st amendment
DeJonge v. Oregon (1937): Communist party meetings are protected by the “free assembly” clause of the 1 st
amendment
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): In the case of a student wearing clothing to protest the Vietnam War, her rights
were violated when the school suspended her. Students “do not shed their Constitutional rights when they
walk through the schoolhouse door”
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988): School authorities can limit student speech/expression that is deemed to
interfere in the educational process.
Morse v. Frederick (2007): Schools have the right to limit student speech/expression if the message delivered
is potentially harmful to students