Student Rights

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

• Issue: Students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War.

• Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

• Key Quote: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or of expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

• Precedent: For expression to be limited, it must pose a “material and substantial disruption” to the educational process—expression must “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of a school.”

REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 v. Pico (1982)

• Issue: A student sued his school district's Board of Education for removing books from the schoo library against the recommendations of parents and school staff.

• Question: Did the Board of Education's decision to ban certain books from its junior high and high school libraries, based on their content, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

• Key Quote: "All First Amendment rights accorded to students must be construed 'in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S., at 506. But the special characteristics of the school library make that environment especially appropriate for the recognition of the First Amendment rights of students."

• Precedent: Students have a right to read library books of their choosing and libraries are centers for voluntary inquiry and dissemination of information and ideas; therefore, local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in them.

REF:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

• Issue: A high school student was expelled for possession of drug paraphernalia after her purse was searched for suspicion of cigarettes.

• Question: Does the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?

• Key Quote: "The legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search."

• Precedent: Students have a legitimate expectation of privacy when in school, and while the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct "reasonable" warrantless searches of students under their authority.

REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-712

Bethel School District no. 403. v. Fraser (1986)

• Issue: At a school-sponsored assembly, a student used a graphic sexual metaphor as part of an election speech at a high school assembly.

• Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?

• Key Quote: “These cases recognize the obvious concern on the part of parents, and school authorities acting in loco parentis to protect children—especially in a captive audience—from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent, or lewd speech.”

• Precedent: The First Amendment does not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse is inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

• Issue: Upon prior review of page proofs for a school-sponsored newspaper, a high school principal withheld from publication two unrelated but “inappropriate” articles about student pregnancy and the impacts of divorce.

• Question: Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

• Key Quote: “Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonable related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

• Precedent: School-sponsored forms of expression, including but not limited to student publications, theatrical productions, and others that bear the “imprimatur” of the school, are considered non-public forums, and as such are subject to prior review and restraint based on definable, valid educational reasons.

  • REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

• Issue: A student was suspended for holding up a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-supervised rally (not on school grounds) for the passing of the Olympic torch relay through the city.

• Question: Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting illegal activity at school-supervised events?

• Key Quote: “We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.”

• Precedent: The speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, therefore the highly protective standard set by Tinker will not always be applied.

REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278

Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (2021)

• Issue: After failing to make her high school's varsity cheerleading team, a student was suspended from the junior varsity cheerleading team for a year after posting a picture of herself on Snapchat with the caption using vulgar but non-threatening language.

• Question: Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech?

• Key Quote: “The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances," but "schools have a strong interest in ensuring that future generations understand the workings in practice of the well-known aphorism, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

• Precedent: Off-campus student speech that does not involve bullying or harassment, threats to teachers or other students, failure to follow rules of participation in school activities, or breaches of school safety or security are protected by the First Amendment.

REF: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255