Presentation on theme: "Supreme Court Cases Notes in p. 89 (Right Side)"— Presentation transcript:
1 Supreme Court Cases Notes in p. 89 (Right Side) In re GaultTinker v. Des MoinesHazelwood v. KuhlmeierSupreme Court Cases Notes in p. 89 (Right Side)
2 Words to knowWrit of habeas corpus- an order requesting someone who has been arrested to appear before the court/judge.Juvenile law- A special category of law created for people under the age of 18.Due process- means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or any right, until they’ve been1. notified- told why2. had an opportunity to be heard/defend themselves in an orderly proceeding- like a trial in a court room
3 Instructions Create a word map for each of the cases discussed. Issue Argument &AmendmentsCase NameRulingSignificance/Importance
4 In re Gault (1967) : IssueGerald Gault, age 15, was arrested for making obscene phone calls to his female neighbor. Gault’s parents weren’t home at the time and were never notified of his arrest. Law enforcement refused to release Gault when his mother located him later that night. Normal trial procedures weren’t followed and, without an attorney or the right to defend himself against his accuser (the neighbor), the judge sentenced him to 6 years in a juvenile detention center. He was denied an appeal because he was under the age of 18.The maximum punishment for an adult was 2 months in prison and a $50 fine.
5 In re Gault : Argument Gault’s 14th amendment right to due process and equalprotection under the law hadbeen denied because he was a minor.The following procedures had not been followed:Gault was never informed of his charges, his right against self-incrimination, or the right to an attorney before being questioned by law enforcementHe was denied writ of habeas corpus- or the opportunity to appear in front of a judgeThe court failed to swear anyone in, record any of the testimony, or even require the neighbor who called the police to show up and testify
6 In re Gault : RulingThe U.S. Supreme Court decided juveniles have the same rights as adults when it comes to due process and should expect:The right against self-incriminationA right to adequate notice of charges against themA right to confront and to cross-examine their accusersThe right to assistance of counsel (attorney)The right to sworn testimony and appeal
7 In re Gault : Significance Juvenile cases are treated with more importance, with due process procedures being adhered to (followed) by both law enforcement officers and officials of the court, ensuring the protection of the rights of minors.
8 Tinker v. Des Moines : Issue John Tinker, 15, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13, and Christopher Echardt, 16, decided to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the students wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended.
9 Tinker v. Des Moines: Arguments The school violated the students’ first amendment right to freedom of speech. The armbands were not causing any type of disruption to the school.
10 Tinker v. Des Moines: Ruling The wearing of armbands was"closely akin to 'pure speech'" andprotected by the 1st Amendment. School environments are able to limit free expression, but here the principals had no reason to restrict the “speech” since they were unable to show that they had, or would in the future, disrupt school.
11 Tinker v. Des Moines: Significance Students’ rights to freedom of speech don’t end at the school house door. Students are able to speak freely as long as it does not cause harm or otherwise disrupt the school environment.
12 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) : Issue Cathy Kuhlmeier & other editors of the Missouri High School newspaper, The Spectrum, filed a lawsuit against the school district when the principal removed 2 pages of their 6 page paper without their knowledge. The articles the principal removed were personal stories about teenagers who went to the school. One was a story about divorce, in which the student brutally criticizes her father. The other was a story about teen pregnancy, describing experiences with sex and birth control.
13 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) : Argument The principal’s actions were censorship and were a violation of their 1st amendment rights to free speech.
14 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) : Ruling The court held that, since the paper was paid for and operated by the school district, the principal, as the “publisher” had the right to remove whatever material he felt inappropriate. Therefore, the school had not violated students’ 1st amendment rights.
15 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) : Significance Schools are able to censor student speech that they feel would disrupt or otherwise be inappropriate to the school environment, as long as the actions are justified.