1. Desegregation Brown vs. Board of Ed (1954)
Bottom Line  Overturned Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) that said separate but equal. Said segregation was unconstitutional.

2. Per Pupil Expenditure San Antonio vs. Rodriguez
Bottom Line  Permitted ANY kind of school finance system as long it provides a minimum education for every student.

3. Students With Limited English Proficiency
Lau vs. Nichols (1974)
Bottom Line  The court held that Title VI required school districts to take steps to rectify the language deficiency of students with limited English.

4. Special Education Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982)
Bottom Line  The IEP must be followed giving the student a free and appropriate education. This did NOT include an interpreter for every class.

5. Accommodating Disabilities
School Board v. Arline (1987)
Bottom Line  Accommodation of students and employees with disabilities is an important feature. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act says you CANNOT discriminated on the basis of a disability. Most of the time segregation is NOT a reasonable approach.

6. Saluting the Flag West Virginia BOE v. Barnette (1943)
Bottom Line You can’t make a student say the pledge. Famous court quote - “No official , high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”

7. Student Speech Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community (1969)
Bottom Line  Students don’t have to shed their constitutional rights at the school house gate….based on the 1st Amendment – Freedom of Speech. Issue is, does it impede the educational process?

8. Censorship Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir (1988)
Bottom Line  Schools officials may exercise content-based control as long as it is for educational purposes.

9. Teachers’ Speech Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle (1977)
Bottom Line  3 step freedom of expression clause to public employees including public school teachers.
Expression is public and the right to speak outweighs the responsibility to teach
The expression was a substantial factor in the adverse action being challenged
Employer must prove that it would have taken the adverse action regardless of the expression of the employee

10. School Libraries
Board of Education Island Trees Union Free School District #26 v. Pico (1982)
Bottom Line  May not remove books from the library simply because they dislike the books ideas. MUST be educationally UNSUITABLE in order to be removed.

11. Student Suspensions and Expulsions
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Bottom Line  on suspensions of up to 10 school days must have at least oral notice of the charges. If student protests, must have explanation of evidence and a chance for the student to tell their side of the story.

12. Corporal Punishment Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
Bottom Line  8th Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment applies to prison not school context. BUT if the student can prove that the punishment was excessive then it breaks the 14th Amendment of “due process”. Student can bring suit against school.

13. Searches of Students New Jersey v. TLO (1985)
Student searches are allowed give there is “reasonable suspicion”. Even noninvasive strip searches have held up in court.

14. Random Drug Test Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Random Drug testing for students that participated in athletics was CONSTITUTIONAL and does NOT violate the 14th Amendment.

15. Sexual Harassment Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools 1992
Bottom Line  Title IX authorizes a suit for money damages.
Gebser vs. Lago Vista, stated that the institution can be held liable when they knew of the situation but did not take corrective measures.

16. Disruptive Students in Special Education
Honing v. Doe (1988)
Bottom Line Special Education students can only be removed with an agreement between the school and the parents…OR by an injunction by the courts if the student could cause harm.

17. Government Aid to Religious Schools
Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971
Government salary supplements for teachers of secular subjects in parochial schools violate 1st amendments establishments clause. 3 part Lemon Test:
Is activity secular in purpose?
Does it neither advance or inhibit religious activity?
Does its implementation excessively entangle government and religion?

18. Prayer at School Events
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Cannot be teacher led but most of the time can be can be student led.
Again, it has to pass the lemon test. Does it ESTABLISH a religion.