EDUC EXAM 2

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Ruled 5-4 that a New Jersey law reimbursing parents for the public bus transportation costs of children attending parochial schools did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

Everson v. Board of Education QUOTE

QUOTE: This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory

education laws, send their children to a religious, rather than a public, school if the school meets

the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. appears that these

parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements. The State contributes no money to the

schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general

program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to

and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high

and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (Missouri) (2017)

Court ruled 7-2 that denying an otherwise available public benefit to a religious organization solely because of its religious status violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (Missouri) QUOTE

QUOTE: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or

torture on account of religion. And the result of the State's policy is nothing so dramatic as

the denial of political office. The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees.

But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise

qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot

stand.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)

Ruled 5-4 that disqualifying private schools from state scholarship tax-credit programs solely based on their religious status violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment 

Carson v. Makin (2022)

Ruled 6-3 that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from its public tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School v. Drummond (2025)

4-4 deadlock that ultimately affirmed Oklahoma decision that barred the creation of the nation’s first religious public charter school, effectively ruling that Trinity-Espinoza-Carson doctrine does not force states to fund religious institutions when they are operating as public schools.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) QUOTE

QUOTE: A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot

disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.

The Blaine Amendment was "born of bigotry" and "arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the

Catholic Church and to Catholics in general"; many of its state counterparts have a similarly

"shameful pedigree."... The no-aid provisions of the 19th century hardly evince a tradition that

should inform our understanding of the Free Exercise Clause.

Carson v. Makin (2022) QUOTE

QUOTE "A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot

disqualify some private schools ... because they are religious."

"[T]he prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a

permission to engage in use-based discrimination."

Scopes v. State of Tennessee (1926)

High school teacher John T. Scopes was accused of violating the Butler Act, he was found guilty and fined $100. The verdict was overturned via a technicality but the Butler Act was still constitutionally upheld.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

Unanimously ruled that states cannot ban the teaching of human evolution in public schools because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) QUOTE

QUOTE: Arkansas' law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. Arkansas did not seek to

excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man. The

law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed

conflict with the Biblical account, literally read

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Ruled 7-2 that Louisiana’s Creationism Act violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it lacked a secular purpose and impermissibly endorsed religion

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) QUOTE

QUOTE: The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment

of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious

viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to

achieve a religious purpose

DISSENT QUOTE: The people of Louisiana ... are quite entitled ... to have whatever scientific evidence there

may be against evolution presented in their schools."

Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)

U.S. District Judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Ruled 7-2 that public school students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”.

Zamecnik v. Indian Praire SD (2006)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in a majority opinion that a public high school violated the First Amendment by banning student T-shirts with the slogan “Be Happy, Not Gay”

Tinker v. Des Moines QUOTE

QUOTE: in our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials

do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of

school, are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights

which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the

State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that

which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of

those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of

constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of

expression of their views.

Defending Education v. Olentangy (2015)

6th Circuit held in a 10-7 ruling that a public school district’s policy prohibiting students from using biological sex pronouns instead of preferred pronouns violated students First Amendment rights.

The Tinker Standard:

Governs when public school administrators can censor or punish student speech protected by the First Amendment.

-exception is "school-sponsored"

Bethel v. Fraser (1986)

A speech to nominate someone for class president included elaborate sexually explicit double entendres and the student was suspended and removed from being a graduation speaker and he sued saying his speech was protected under the first amendment. Ruled 7-2 that the First Amendment does not prevent schools from disciplining students for lewd, indecent, or vulgar speech

*Fails Tinker bc school sponsored

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Ruled 5-3 that public school officials do not violate the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of school-sponsored student speech, as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

*fails tinker because school sponsored

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Brennan Dissent

Argued that the Court’s majority permitted impermissible blanket censorship that undermines the constitutional education of students; speech based on discomfort with sensitive topics like teen pregnancy and divorce is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Limited students' free speech rights. Ruled that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner; he was suspended and argued his 1st was violated. Ruled 5-4 that public schools can restrict free speech that reasonably appears to promote illegal drug use.

Morse v. Frederick (2007) Alito Concurrence

Stressed that the Court’s opinion applied only to speech reasonably interpreted as advocating illegal drug use & explicitly noted the decision provides no support for restricting speech commenting on political or social issues, such as the legalization of marijuana or the war on drugs 

Morse v. Frederick (2007) Thomas Concurrence

Argued that the First Amendment as originally understood does not protect public schools’ students speech; wants to see Tinker overturned completely.

Mahanoy Area S.D v. B.L. (2021)

Ruled 8-1 that a public high school violated a student’s First Amendment rights by suspending her from the jv cheerleading team for vulgar, off-campus social media posts.

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)

Ruled 8-1 that firing a public school teacher for publicly criticizing school board finances violated the First Amendment

McHugh v. Milford SD (D. Del. 2000)

Held that a public school employee’s complaints regarding private bus contractor operations constituted protected speech under the First Amendment, but granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Houlihan v. Sussex Tech SD (2006)

Case rose after the school district chose not to renew the school’s psychologist’s employment contract following her repeated reports and efforts to address the district's alleged noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court ruled for the employee, finding that her internal allegations and reporting of IDEA noncompliance constituted a protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act. Her retaliation claim under this framework was allowed to move forward.

Houlihan v. Sussex Tech SD (2006) Applying Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)

The court also ruled for the school district regarding the First Amendment claim. Applying Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the court held that because her reports regarding IDEA noncompliance were made pursuant to her official job duties as a school psychologist, her speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Pico v. Island Trees (1982)

Ruled 5-4 that the Board of Education’s decision to ban certain books from its junior high and high school libraries based on their content violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

Counts v. Cedarville School District (Ark., 2003)

District Court ruled that the school board’s restriction requiring parental permission to check out Harry Potter books violated the students’ First Amendment rights.

*TO ILLUSTRATE PICO

Watts v. United States (1969)

Court of Appeals ruled that an 18 year old anti-war protestor’s statement about President Johnson was protected political hyperbole rather than an actual threat.

Counterman v. Colorado (2023)

A man repeatedly sent a woman creepy messages on Facebook and implied that she was going to be stalked and killed and charged with stalking and harassment and he argued that they weren't true threats. Ruled 7-2 that to prosecute a speaker for a “true threat” under the First Amendment, the government must prove that the defendant had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements, meeting at least a reckless standard.

*reckless disregard= makes it easier to prosecute people under true threat

Counterman v. Colorado (2023) QUOTE

QUOTE: A person acts recklessly, in the most common

formulation, when he "consciously disregard[s] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk that the

conduct will cause harm to another." That standard involves insufficient concern with risk, rather

than awareness of impending harm. But still, recklessness is morally culpable conduct, involving

a "deliberate decision to endanger another." In the threats context, it means that a speaker is

aware "that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and "delivers them

anyway."

That standard, again, is recklessness.

Wynar v. Douglas County (2013)

Court of Appeals ruled that public schools may discipline students for off-campus digital speech if it poses a foreseeable, real risk of substantial disruption to school activities or threatens student safety.

Frankel v. University of California (2024)

Court ruled that UCLA cannot provide or facilitate campus programs, activities, or areas if Jewish students, faculty, or staff are excluded from them.

Fellers v. Kelley (1st Cir. 2026)

Wore "XX" wristbands to soccer game to protest trans athletes they were told to leave and when they refused they were issues trespass orders from the school property and they sued the district for violating their 1st amendment rights.

The court did not hold that schools can never restrict political or controversial expression at school events. The majority recognized that schools have special authority to prevent material disruption and address legitimate school-related concerns. But, on these particular facts, the majority found that the school district’s response went beyond those legitimate interests. 

Aktas v. France and others (ECtHR, 2009)

The court found that expelling pupils from public schools for refusing to remove conspicuous religious symbols (such as Islamic headscarves, Jewish yarmulkes, or Sikh turbans) pursued legitimate aims under the Convention: protecting public order, safeguarding the rights and freedoms of others, and preserving the constitutional and neutral principle of secularity in state schools. 

Basically, France won the case and the expulsions were upheld. The Court threw out the students' cases before they could proceed to a full merits judgment, finding no prima facie violation of the ECHR.

SAS v. France (ECtHR, 2014)

Ruled 15-2 that France’s ban on face coverings in public places did not violate the ECHR.

US DoE material on Title VI harassment (3 items)

1. Shared Ancestry Protection: Title VI covers religious groups (like Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus) whenever they are targeted for their ethnic background, language, cultural clothing, or ancestral roots.

2. School Duty: Schools that get federal money must step in fast to stop severe or persistent harassment based on these traits; ignoring it or failing to protect students breaks federal law.

3. Protection for Jewish Students: Anti-Semitic harassment—including slurs, swastikas, or targeting students for their Jewish heritage—is treated directly as shared ancestry discrimination under Title VI.

Child Benefit Theory

Legal principle that allows state governments to provide indirect public welfare benefits or services to students attending private or church-run schools, provided the aid is targeted at the individual child rather than the religious institution itself. Established by Everson v Board of Education 1947

2 Sense of Religious Neutrality

Referee/Sectarian: neutrality among religions, the state can accommodate, support, or allow religion in the public square provided it does so equally and without discrimination.

Comprehensive: neutrality about religion in general, the state must completely abstain from endorsing, promoting, or funding religious concepts or activities altogether.

Butler Act

1925 Tennessee law that made it illegal for public schools and universities funded by the state to teach any theory that denied the biblical story of the divine creation of human beings (aka evolution).

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Scalia Dissent

Argued that the legislature acted with a legitimate secular purpose of protecting academic freedom and that courts should not invalidate laws based on speculation about lawmakers hidden motives

Creationism/Equal Time Act

1981 Louisiana state law that forbade teaching evolution in public schools unless it was paired with instruction in “creation science”.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Black Dissent

Believed the First Amendment does not grant students the right to express any opinion inside classrooms at any time, and that the ruling wrongfully shifted school discipline control from local educators to the judiciary. Argued maintaining school order and discipline is more important than student political demonstrations.

Heckler’s Veto

Occurs when a speaker’s right to free expression is supressed or cancelled either by government action or by disruptive crowd behavior because of an actual or anticipated hostile reaction from opponents.