Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The high school principal seized the banner and suspended Frederick because the banner was perceived to advocate the use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court held that a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986) Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) Agostini v.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from their position. [1]
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision [1] by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Three years after the decision, E. Gordon Gee, then a professor at West Virginia University College of Law, described it as a turning point in First Amendment jurisprudence. Before Mt. Healthy, once a First Amendment violation was found, the Court proceeded no further in its analysis. Rather, freedom of speech, considered by the Court to be the ...
In an 8–1 decision, [1] the Court held that denying equal access to the religious club violated the Equal Access Act, and that treating a religious club equally, including providing a sponsor like other clubs, would not constitute an endorsement of religion prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. [2] The school's ...