Constitutional

WWvv

Law Cases

Porem am volorempedis alic te denditias mo

et mi, endelest faccaer chilia sim reste
Porem am volorempedis alic te denditias mo
et mi, endelest faccaer chilia sim reste
Porem am volorempedis alic te denditias mo
et mi, endelest faccaer chilia sim reste
Magnim nam fuga. Itatur ra
dolestibus porion remporrum
eos resti aut asseque et ma
volorro eum untiatibus au-
tatum aut excea nosam, sim-
porp osanis et ut verumquis
Alex Slopsema
aut rehendiscit la quae nusam
Everson v. Board(1947)
Being Driven to Church
Did the New Jersey statute law funding transportation
to private schools, including religious schools, the Es-
tablishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Description
In 1947, New Jersey passed a law that allowed
local school boards to pay for transporta-
tion to and from private schools, which were
mostly catholic. Arch Everson sued the state
on constitutional grounds.

Decision
In a 5-4 decision, the court decided that while the
1st Amendment applied to the states under the 14th
Amendment, it upheld the New Jersey law, because it
had a broad “public purpose” and did not encourage
religious belief. This case established the furthering
government interest test for the Establishment Clause.

Page 2
W

Quotes
The only contention here is that the state statute and the resolution, insofar as they
authorized reimbursement to parents of children attending parochial schools, violate
the Federal Constitution in these two respects, which to some extent overlap. (Justice
Black)
The fact that a state law, passed to satisfy a public need, coincides with the personal
desires of the individuals most directly affected is certainly an inadequate reason for
us to say that a legislature has erroneously appraised the public need. (Justice Black)

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be
kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey
has not breached it here. (Justice Black)

This case established a test

Connections
for the Establishment Clause, This case connects to oth-
which is whether an action er Establishment Clause
taken by the government fur- cases, especially in schools
like Westside Community
thers legitimate government
Schools v. Mergers and En-
interests and does not directly gel v. Vitale.
support religion.
Brown v. Board(1954)
A Long Walk
Does the racial segregation of public education
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment?

Description
This case consolidate many cases from sev-
eral states. These cases covered African
American students being denied admittance
to public schools on the basis of their race.
The lower courts generally upheld the laws
denying these students.

Decision
The Decision in Brown v. Board was unani-
mous and decided that Separate but Equal in
schools is inherently unequal and violates the
Equal Protections clause. This is because be-
ing kept separate inflicts a sense of inferiori-
ty on African Americans.

Page 4
W

Quotes
In the field of public education, the doctrine of
‘separate but equal’ has no place. (Warren)
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. (Warren)

Today, education is perhaps the most important

function of state and local governments. (Warren)

This case struck down the princi-

ple of “separate but equal” which Connections
served as the constitutional basis This case overturned Sep-
for Jim Crow in the south. This case arate but Equal as estab-
lished in Plessy v. Ferguson
is one of the cases ending segre-
and was part of a group of
gation and affirming equal rights. It
cases that overturned seg-
has tremendous importance in the regation in school like Men-
Civil Rights Movement rights. dez v. Ferguson.
Tinker v. Des Moines(1969)
Armbands and Iron Crosses
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public
school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students’ free-
dom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Description
In 1965, 5 students at Des Moines Public School wore black arm-
bands to protest the Vietnam war. The principal of a local high
school was made aware of their protest and banned armbands.
Three high school students, two of which were named Tinker
and their friend Christopher Eckhardt were expelled for wear-
ing the armbands anyway. No disruption ever provably resulted
from their actions. The Iowa Civil Liberties Union took up their
case and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Decision
Writing for the majority, Abe Fortas ruled that the Tinkers’
speech was constitutionally protected. It was akin to pure
speech and did not cause any meaningful obstruction to
tuition. Additionally, other political symbols had been al-
lowed on campus by the administration, including the iron
cross. The court affirmed that the 1st Amendment applied to
schools and students, even if the speech is controversial.

Page 6
W

Quotes
The wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case [...]
was closely akin to ‘pure speech’ which [...] is entitled to compre-
hensive protection under the First Amendment. (Justice Fortas)
The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a si-
lent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder
or disturbance on the part of [the protestors]. (Justice Fortas)
  Our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of open-
ness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and
vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often
disputatious society. (Justice Fortas)
This ruling is important because
it affirms freedom of speech in
Connections
This case connects to
schools and set the test for de- other cases around
termining whether schools can freedom of speech in
restrict political speech. It also schools, furthering rights
affirmed these political symbols established in Engel v.
as true speech. Vitale.
Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
Paying for Textbooks
Does state funding of religious schools violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Description
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island passed laws that paid for
parts of private, including religious, education. In Penn-
sylvania, the law paid for salaries, textbooks, and instruc-
tional materials for secular subjects. Rhode Island’s bill
supplemented teacher’s salaries. Several groups sued the
states, arguing that the state was supporting religion by
funding religious schools.

Decision
The court ruled 8-1. The majority opinion stated that a law
or statute had to meet three criteria to avoid violating the
Establishment Clause: having valid secular purpose, the pri-
mary affect must not promote or inhibit religion, and that it
can’t entangle government with religion. Since both of the
statutes required the government to strictly enforce a barri-
er between secular and religious instruction, it entangles the
government and both of the laws are unconstitutional.

Page 8
W

<- David Kurtzman

Alton Lemon ->

Quotes
The line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred,
indistinct, and variable barrier. (Justice Burger)

Religion must be a private matter for the individ-

ual, the family, and ... institutions. (Justice Burger)
Self-censorship ... inevitably accompanies state regulation of
delicate First Amendment freedoms. (Justice Brennan)

This case established a view of

Connections
the Establishment Clause that It connects to other cas-
continues to affect Supreme es arround the Establish-
Court decisions, long after it ment Clause like Engel v.
has ceased to be precedent. Vitale and Carson v. Ma-
kin.
University of California v. Bakke(1978)
Got rejected, Blamed Minorities

Does the University of California’s policy of

affirmative action that resulted in Bakke’s re-
jection violate the Equal Protections Clause?

Description
Allan Bakke, a white student, applied to the Univer-
sity of California Davis Medical School and was re-
jected twice. The school reserved slots for minority
students, and Bakke’s qualifications exceed the mi-
nority students. He sued the university on the basis
that he was discriminated against on the basis of
his race.

Decision
There was not a majority opinion, but the court
generally allowed affirmative action but restricted
specific racial quotas.

Page 10
W

Quotes
Racial and ethnic classifications of any sort are inherently
suspect and call for more exacting judicial scrutiny. (Jus-
tice Powell)
The concepts of “majority” and “minority” necessarily re-
flect temporary arrangements and political judgments.
(Justice Powell)
Even in the absence of such prior discrimination, a recip-
ient, in administering a program, may take affirmative ac-
tion. (Justice Brennan)
This affirmed Affirmative Ac-
Connections
tion which expanded oppor- It connects to other cas-
tunities for underrepresented es arround affirmative
minorities, while also not al- action, like being mod-
lowing strict quotas. ernized by Grutter v.
Bollinger(2003).
Hazelwood v. Kulhmeier(1988)
Freedom of the Press?
Did the principal’s censorship of the articles
violate the students’ rights under the First
Amendment?

Description
A school newspaper at Hazelwood East High
planned to release two articles that the princi-
pal found to be inappropriate and prevented
that edition from being published. The two arti-
cles covered teen pregnancy and divorce.

Decision
In a 5-3 decision, the court held that the First
Amendment did not protect the articles, because
a school newspaper is the school promoting
speech and that schools had the right to refuse
to sponsor speech that was “inconsistent with
‘the shared values of a civilized social order.”

Page 12
W

Quotes
This case concerns the extent to which educators may exercise
editorial control over ... a high school newspaper produced as
part of the school’s journalism curriculum. (Justice White)
Whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular stu-
dent speech ... is different from whether the First Amendment requires a
school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. (Justice White)

If mere incompatibility with the school’s pedagogical message were a consti-

tutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school
officials could censor each of the students or student organizations.(Justice
Brennan)
This case is important, because it
clarifies the difference between
Connections
It connects to other cas-
freedom of speech in schools
es around freedom of
and use of government resourc- the press like New York
es and applied a test of applying Times v. US and Branz-
to “the shared values of a civi- burg v. Hayez.
lized social order.”
Parents Involved in Community Schools v.
Seattle(2007)
Tiebreaking by Race

Is racial diversity a compelling interest in educa-

tion, and does the 14th Amendment allow schools
to deny applications purely on the basis of race?

Description
The Seattle School district allows students to apply to any
high school within the district and to ensure that any school
didn’t get too crowded evaluated applicants for admission.
Within that system, race was a factor and applied to schools
a certain distance from the racial makeup of the entire dis-
trict. This policy predominantly helped students of color. A
group called Parents Involved in Community Schools sued
the District for racial discrimination.

Decision
The court was split. They struck down the policy as uncon-
stitutional. A plurality opinion by John Roberts held that
since race was a not a simple factor within an application,
but a strict tie breaker, that the policy was not designed to
enhance education, and that the strict delineation between
white and not white was unconstitutional.

Page 14
W

Quotes
Both cases present the same underlying legal question—whether a public
school that had not operated legally segregated schools or has been found to
be unitary may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classifi-
cation in making school assignments. (Justice Roberts)
We have emphasized that the harm being remedied by mandatory desegrega-
tion plans is the harm that is traceable to segregation, and that “the Constitu-
tion is not violated by racial imbalance in the schools, without more.” (Justice
Roberts)
Even when it comes to race, the plans here employ only a limited no-
tion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in
Seattle and black/“other” terms in Jefferson County. (Justice Roberts)

This case represents a shift in

Connections
the court away from affirma- It connects to other cas-
tive actions and the modern es arround affirmative
challenges that the court fac- action, like being mod-
es. I picked it because it shows ernized by Grutter v.
moderns problems, without Bollinger(2003).
being too recent.