Assignment 3
Brief of 5 Supreme Court Cases
by
Dave Winogron
856-802-9234 (home)
609-656-4900 Ext. 5665 (work)
EDD 8434 – 25594 – OL3
School Law – Dr. Robert J. Safransky
Nova Southeastern University
September 23, 2007
2
Case 1
Citation: Carey et Al. v. Piphus et Al., 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2nd 252 (1978).
Argued: December 6, 1977
Date Decided: March 21, 1978
Vote: 8-0: Students can collect damages for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights but
with limitation to nominal damages.
Facts of Case: Public school students were suspended from school without due process in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The school principal observed, and later
approached Piphus, a high school freshman, and another student smoking what the
principal believed to be marihuana during school hours and on school property. The
students were taken to the school's disciplinary office where they were suspended for 20
days without a hearing for violation of the school rule against drug use. Suit was filed for
compensation for violation of students’ Fourteenth Amendment rights for suspension
without due process. Piphus was readmitted to school after eight days of his suspension
under a temporary restraining order.
Legal Principles at Issue: Can public school students collect damages for violation of their
Fourteenth Amendment rights of Due Process?
Legal Basis for Decision: Any citizen of the U.S. who is deprived of any rights secured by the
Constitution and laws shall be eligible for redress from the offending party.
Quotable: “in the absence of proof of actual injury, the students are entitled to recover only
nominal damages”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Powell
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/247/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1149/
Case 2
Citation: Goss et Al. v. Lopez et Al., 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct 729, 42 L.Ed.2nd 725 (1975).
Argued: October 16, 1974
Date Decided: January 22, 1975
Vote: 5-4: Public school students are entitled to hearings and due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment when suspended from school.
3
Facts of Case: Nine Ohio public school students were suspended from school for up to 10 days
without a hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time after suspension. Ohio
law did not require hearings for student suspensions.
Legal Principles at Issue: Due process. Does the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process clause
require notice or hearing for suspension from school?
Legal Basis for Decision: Under Ohio state law, students are entitled to a public education as a
property right. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the State
from withholding life, liberty, or property without due process. Students did not receive a
hearing prior to or soon after suspension, depriving them of due process guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Quotable: “The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice White
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/419/565/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_898/
Case 3
Citation: Tinker et Al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89
S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed 733 (1969).
Argued: November 12, 1969
Date Decided: February 24, 1969
Vote: 7-2: Students have freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Facts of Case: As a protest of the Vietnam War public school students wore black arm bands to
schools during the Christmas holidays. The decision to protest was discussed by the
students with their parents prior to the symbolic protest. School administration informed
of the protest in advance decided that all students wearing armbands would be asked to
remove them or face suspension. When the students wore their armbands to school they
were suspended after refusing to remove them.
Legal Principles at Issue: Violation of students’ First Amendment right and freedom of speech.
Students still have Constitutional rights while in school unless justification for limitation.
Legal Basis for Decision: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and
symbolic free speech. The school administration lacked justification to impose limits on
student action. The wearing of arm bands by the students did not substantially interfere
with school operation.
4
Quotable: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights
to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Fortas
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/503/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/
Case 4
Citation: Lemon et Al. v. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et Al.
403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2nd 745 (1971).
Argued: March 3, 1971
Date Decided: June 28, 1971
Vote: 8-0: Rhode Island judgment was affirmed. Vote: 8-1: Pennsylvania judgment was
reversed. The state statues were found to violate the First Amendment Establishment
clause to prohibit government involvement in spreading or restraining religion through
financial support.
Facts of Case: State statutes in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island provided financial support for
non-public school teachers’ salaries. Additionally, the Rhode Island statute provided
support for textbooks in the non-public elementary schools. State monies supported
schools with direct affiliation with religious institutions.
Legal Principles at Issue: State statutes in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island violated the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Establishment clause by providing public financial
aid to church-related schools. The First Amendment Establishment clause prohibits
government involvement in spreading or restraining religion.
Legal Basis for Decision: The First Amendment Establishment clause prohibits government
involvement in spreading or restraining religion. Subsidizing religious schools promoted
religious involvement. When a statute is challenged, 3 standards must be used for the
statute to meet constitutional standards: they must have no religious purpose, not advance
or restrict religion, and not develop government involvement with religion. This 3-part
test is called the Lemon test.
Quotable: “The Religion Clauses were intended to protect involvement or entanglement between
government and religion serves as a warning signal.” “A given law might not establish a
state religion but nevertheless be one ‘respecting’ that end in the sense of being a step
that could lead to such establishment and hence offend the First Amendment.”
Writing for the Majority: Chief Justice Burger
5
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89
Case 5
Citation: Ingraham et Al. v. Wright et Al., 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed. 2nd 711 (1977).
Argued: November 2-3, 1976
Date Decided: August 19, 1977
Vote: 5-4: Public school students can be paddled without first receiving a hearing.
Facts of Case: Corporal punishment is legal in Florida to provide student discipline. Two
students attending a public junior high school in Florida were punished in school by
paddling. The paddling was severe enough for one student to be seen by a doctor and
remain out of school for a period of time. Suit was filed in federal court arguing that the
paddling was “cruel and unusual punishment” and that students should have a right to be
heard before physical punishment is given.
Legal Principles at Issue: 8th Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment; 14th Amendment,
Due Process. Does corporal punishment violate the 8th Amendment regarding criminal
procedures and 14th Amendment for Due Process of a hearing?
Legal Basis for Decision: The 8th Amendment applies to the criminal process to protect those
convicted of crimes from cruel and unusual punishment. The Court held that the 8th
Amendment does not apply to the paddling of children as a means of maintaining
discipline in public schools. Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process violation, does not
require notice and hearing prior to imposition of corporal punishment, as Florida law
authorizes the teacher and principal to decide whether corporal punishment is necessary
to discipline the child. Further, Florida has maintained hearings to determine if the
punishment was justified. School authorities, however, may be held liable if the
punishment is later found to have been excessive or not necessary for the child's
discipline.
Quotable: “Despite the general abandonment of corporal punishment as a means of punishing
criminal offenders, the practice continues to play a role in the public education of
schoolchildren in most parts of the country.” “The State itself may impose such corporal
punishment as is reasonably necessary ‘for the proper education of the child and for the
maintenance of group discipline.’”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Powell
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/651/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_6527/