1. Bill of Rights Test Cases

2. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

3. The student body of Wayne Memorial High School took a vote
The student body of Wayne Memorial High School took a vote. By a vast majority they voted to conduct a student-led prayer over the public address system of their football stadium before the kick-off of each home game. They elected Paul, the student-body president, to conduct the non-denominational prayer. Jane, an atheist, objected. She was neither required to participate, nor punished for refusing. Nonetheless, Jane believes the public prayer itself to be unconstitutional.      Should the students of Wayne Memorial High School be allowed to perform the student read prayer publicly at the games?

4. Santa Fe Independent School District v
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) Issue: School Prayer Bottom Line: Public schools Cannot Sponsor Religious Activity
The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by a policy authorizing, via a vote of the student body, a student-led, student-initiated prayer over the public address system prior to a football game. The school policy made the prayer “public speech” not private, taking place on government property, with government sanction, at a government- sponsored event. “The realities of the situation plainly reveal that the districts policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion.” The court noted that the voting process did not make the prayer permissible, but in fact constitutes religious coercion of the minority by the majority.

5. Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

6. Did the principal have the right to go into her purse?
a 14-year-old freshman at John Glenn High School, was caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. She said that it was not her and teacher escorted her to the principal where she was questioned and looked through her purse for evidence. Inside was a pack of cigarettes as well as a small amount of marijuana. The police were called and the student admitted to selling drugs at school.
Her case went to trial and she was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on probation. She appealed her conviction, claiming that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures.“
Did the principal have the right to go into her purse?
Should the evidence she found be used against her in court?

7. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Issue: Privacy Rights at School Bottom Line: Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students have "legitimate expectations of privacy," the Court said, but that must be balanced with the school's responsibility for "maintaining an environment in which learning can take place." The initial search of Terry's purse for cigarettes was reasonable, the Court said, based on the teacher's report that she'd been smoking in the bathroom. The discovery of the cigarettes in her purse created a reasonable suspicion, which justified further exploration.

8. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

9. In the hope of avoiding any controversy of opposition to this Nations part in the Iraq War as well as the fear of a disturbance within the school, Garden City high school has adapted a new policy that states any student wearing an armband in show of opposition in school would be asked to remove it, and if refused, would be suspended. Two days later two students come to school with armbands and are suspended and cannot come back unless they do not have an arm band on.   Does this new policy infringe upon the students Free Speech?

10. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) Issue: Freedom of Speech at School Bottom Line: You Have the Right To Express Yourself—Up to a Point
The Supreme Court determines that the Free Speech Clause protects the silent expression of wearing armbands, and that in order for school officials to justify the restriction of a particular expression of opinion; there needs to be some form of compelling government interest. In addition, the school did not restrict the wearing of all symbols of political controversial significance. The restriction of expression of one particular opinion, without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline is not constitutionally permissible.

11. Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

12. In the hope of preventing drug use among student athletes, the school district of Wayne Westland has adapted a new Student Activities Drug Testing Policy. This new policy requires all middle and high school students to consent to urine analysis for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Feeling that this policy violated the students Fourth Amendment rights, two high school students and their parents want to take this new policy to court. Does the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy violate the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable search and seizures? 12

13. Board of Education v. Earls (2000) Issue: Student Athletes and Drug Testing Bottom Line: Schools Can Require It
The Supreme Court found that the policy is constitutional because it reasonably serves the school district’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students. Because the school board regulates the school’s extracurricular activities, students have a reduced expectation of privacy. Moreover, the school board’s method of getting urine samples and maintaining test results amounted to a small and acceptable invasion of student privacy. The court did not say whether it thought that drug testing students was a good idea, only that it was constitutional. 13

14. A senior at WMHSM asked her homeroom teacher, who was also the school's principal, for permission to start an after-school Christian club. WMHS already had about 30 clubs, including a chess club and a scuba-diving club. The principal denied Bridget's request, telling her that a religious club would be illegal in a public school.
The year before, in 1984, Congress had addressed this issue in the Equal Access Act, which required public schools to allow religious and political clubs if they let students form other kinds of student-interest clubs. The Student challenged the principal's decision.
Does the principal have to allow the student to have a Christian Club at school?

15. West Side Community Schools v
West Side Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) Issue: Student Clubs Bottom Line: Public Schools That Allow Student-Interest Clubs Cannot Exclude Religious or Political Ones
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student. Allowing students to meet on campus to discuss religion after school did not amount to state sponsorship of religion, the Court said: "We think that secondary-school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits."