RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW-SUPREME COURT

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2004

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO.: 03-681

NAME: Rothman v. Clarke

DATE: Jan. 12, 2004

CITATION: cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 1074 (2004)

DOCKET NO.: 03-830

NAME: Bush v. Zeeland Board of Education

DATE: Jan. 20, 2004

CITATION: cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 1153 (2004)

Decisions with written opinions in the Court of Appeals:

DOCKET NO.: 03-483

NAME: Longview Independent School District v. Coggin

DATE: Nov. 17, 2003

Former employee sued school district under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 for terminating him without a hearing thus violating his due process rights under the 14th Amendment. The former employee was informed that his contract was to be terminated and he filed a request for a hearing as allowed by state law. The district knew that the employee had requested a hearing but terminated him without affording him the opportunity for said hearing. The trial court found that the employee had been deprived of his property without due process when it terminated his employment contract without any kind of a hearing. Held: Court of appeals upheld the decision of the trial court. Coggin v. Longview Independent School District, 337 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, Longview Independent School District v. Coggin, 124 S.Ct. 579 (2003).

DOCKET NOS.: 03-441

NAME: S.G. v. Sayreville Board of Education

DATE: Jan. 12, 2004

Father of a kindergarten student sued school board under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 for violating his son's constitutional rights of freedom of speech, equal protection and procedural due process. The kindergarten student was suspended for uttering the statement "I'm going to shoot you" to his friends while they were playing at recess. The school had had a series of incidents where students had threatened (in jest or otherwise) to use guns to harm others at the school. In response the school instituted a policy that immediate disciplinary action would be taken against any student that makes statements referring to violence or weapons. Held: Court of appeals held that the kindergarten student's constitutional rights were not violated by the school's actions. The court recognized that a school's authority to control student speech in an elementary school setting is greater than in a high school. Furthermore the court recognized that a balance must be struck between a student's rights and the school's role in fostering socially appropriate behavior. Given the school's interest in preventing violence its suspension of the student for his utterances on the play ground fell squarely within the school's discretionary decision making power. S.G. v. Sayreville Board of Education, 333 F.3d 417 (3rd Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 1040 (2004).

DOCKET NO.: 03-693

NAME: Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. Hills

DATE: Jan. 20, 2004

Plaintiff sued school district for violating his First Amendment rights when the district refused to allow him to distribute his summer camp brochure to students based on its religious content. The district had a policy that allowed certain outside, nonprofit groups to distribute literature to the students informing them of extracurricular activities or issues of general interest to students. In order to have one's flyers distributed at the school, the group had to seek permission of the district or its designee, and none of the materials could be of a commercial, political or religious nature. Held: Court of appeals found that the school district's policy violated plaintiff's rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By allowing any flyers to be distributed from outside groups the district created a limited public forum. Restrictions on speech in a limited public forum must be both viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. Since the forum had a broad purpose, and the summer camp fell within this purpose, viewpoint discrimination was not permissible when it was directed at speech otherwise falling within the forum's limitations. Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist., No. 48, 329 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2003), cert, denied, Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist., No. 48 v. Hills, 124 S.Ct. 1146 (2004).