1. Some test cases

2. The student body of Crestwood high school, a 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 Lakewood High School be allowed to perform the student read prayer publicly at the games?

3. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. V. Doe (2000) 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.

4. 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 ?

5. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 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.

6. 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?

7. Board of Education v. Earls (2002) 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.