10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know, Part II

Issue: School authority over students’ social media

Bottom Line: Off-campus student speech is mostly protected.

Background: In 2017, Brandi Levy, a ninth-grader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania, sent a Snapchat message full of swear words to express her frustration at not having made the varsity cheerleading squad. She sent the message on a Saturday from a convenience store, but a cheerleading coach saw it, and the school suspended Levy from cheerleading for a year.

Levy (known as B.L. in court papers) sued the school district and won a sweeping victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District, which said the First Amendment didn’t allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds. The school district appealed.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that the school had violated Levy’s right to free speech by punishing her for something she said off campus. It was the first time in more than 50 years that a high school student won a free-speech case at the Supreme Court.

David Cole, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Levy in the case, called the ruling “a huge victory for the free-speech rights of millions of students who attend our nation’s public schools.”

Issue: School authority over students’ social media

Bottom Line: Off-campus student speech is mostly protected.

Background: In 2017, Brandi Levy was a ninth-grader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania. That year, she posted a Snapchat full of swear words to express her frustration at not having made the varsity cheerleading squad. She sent the message on a Saturday from a convenience store, but a cheerleading coach saw it. The school then suspended Levy from cheerleading for a year.

Levy (known as B.L. in court papers) sued the school district. She won a sweeping victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District. The ruling said the First Amendment didn’t allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds. The school district appealed.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that the school had violated Levy’s right to free speech by punishing her for something she said off campus. It was the first time in more than 50 years that a high school student won a free-speech case at the Supreme Court.

David Cole, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, represented Levy in the case. He called the ruling “a huge victory for the free-speech rights of millions of students who attend our nation’s public schools.”

Impact: The ruling didn’t completely bar schools from punishing students for off-campus speech, citing the need for schools to be able to deal with issues like bullying and threats. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said part of what schools must teach students is the value of free speech.

“America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy,” he wrote. “Our representative democracy only works if we protect the ‘marketplace of ideas.’”

Impact: The ruling didn’t completely stop schools from punishing students for off-campus speech. It cited the need for schools to be able to deal with issues like bullying and threats. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said part of what schools must teach students is the value of free speech.

“America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy,” he wrote. “Our representative democracy only works if we protect the ‘marketplace of ideas.’”

Issue: Constitutional rights at home

Bottom Line: The Constitution doesn’t protect kids from their parents.

Background: Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived in Neenah, Wisconsin, with his father, who physically abused him. At one point, the state Department of Social Services took custody of Joshua but returned him to his father after three days. Joshua was later hospitalized with bruises all over his body and severe brain damage. He survived but was permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled. His father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison.

Joshua’s mother later sued the Department of Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued that the department had a duty to protect her son under the 14th Amendment, which forbids the state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Issue: Constitutional rights at home

Bottom Line: The Constitution doesn’t protect kids from their parents.

Background: Background: Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived in Neenah, Wisconsin, with his father, who physically abused him. At one point, the state Department of Social Services took custody of Joshua. The agency returned him to his father after three days. Joshua was later hospitalized with bruises all over his body and severe brain damage. He survived but was permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled. His father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison.

Joshua’s mother later sued the Department of Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued that the department had a duty to protect her son under the 14th Amendment, which forbids the state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Ruling: The Court ruled 6 to 3 against Joshua and his mother. It said, essentially, that the Constitution doesn’t protect children from their parents; therefore the government was not at fault in Joshua’s abuse.

Impact: The Supreme Court has consistently respected parents’ rights to discipline their children. But even if the government isn’t required by the Constitution to protect children, the states assume this responsibility through child protection laws, which were used to prosecute Joshua’s father. The Supreme Court has generally deferred to state and local governments to enforce these laws and to intervene in cases of mistreatment.

Ruling: The Court ruled 6 to 3 against Joshua and his mother. It said, essentially, that the Constitution doesn’t protect children from their parents. So the government was not at fault in Joshua’s abuse.

Impact: The Supreme Court has consistently respected parents’ rights to discipline their children. But even if the government isn’t required by the Constitution to protect children, states take on this responsibility through child protection laws. Those laws were used to prosecute Joshua’s father. The Supreme Court has generally looked to state and local governments to enforce these laws and to intervene in cases of mistreatment.

Issue: Student journalism

Bottom Line: Schools can censor student newspapers.

Background: Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett—all juniors at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri—helped write and edit the school paper, the Spectrum, as part of a journalism class. An issue of the Spectrum was to include articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students. The principal refused to let the Spectrum publish the two stories, saying they were too sensitive for younger students and contained too many personal details. The girls went to court claiming their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated.

Issue: Student journalism

Bottom Line: Schools can censor student newspapers.

Background: Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett were all juniors at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri. They helped write and edit the school paper, the Spectrum, as part of a journalism class. An issue of the Spectrum was to include articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students. The principal refused to let the Spectrum publish the two stories. The principal said the content was too sensitive for younger students and listed too many personal details. The girls went to court claiming their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated.

Ruling: In a 5-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the teens. A school newspaper isn’t a public forum in which anyone can voice an opinion, the Court said, but rather a supervised learning experience for students interested in journalism.

“Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities,” the Court said, “so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concerns.”

Impact: Schools may censor newspapers and restrict other forms of student expression, including theatrical productions, yearbooks, creative-writing assignments, and campaign and graduation speeches. But the Court’s ruling in Hazelwood also encourages schools to look closely at a student activity before imposing any restrictions and to balance the goal of maintaining high standards for student speech with the right of students to free expression.

Ruling: In a 5-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the teens. A school newspaper isn’t a public forum in which anyone can voice an opinion, the Court said. Instead, the Court noted it to be a supervised learning experience for students interested in journalism.

“Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities,” the Court said, “so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concerns.”

Impact: Schools may censor newspapers and restrict other forms of student expression, including theatrical productions, yearbooks, creative-writing assignments, and campaign and graduation speeches. But the Court’s ruling in Hazelwood also encourages schools to look closely at a student activity before placing any restrictions. The ruling also encourages schools to balance the goal of maintaining high standards for student speech with the right of students to free expression.

Issue: Drug testing for extracurricular activities

Bottom Line: Schools can require it.

Background: Lindsay Earls was a model high school junior: a member of the National Honor Society and in her school’s choir and marching band. But at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma, participation in extracurricular activities meant she had to agree to be tested for illegal drug use.

Lindsay reluctantly agreed to the testing so she could continue to participate in her clubs. (She tested negative.) But she and another student, Daniel James, decided to sue the Tecumseh school district. They argued that the drug-testing policy violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under the law.   

Issue: Drug testing for extracurricular activities

Bottom Line: Schools can require it.

Background: Lindsay Earls was a model high school junior. She was a member of the National Honor Society and in her school’s choir and marching band. But at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma, participation in extracurricular activities meant she had to agree to be tested for illegal drug use.

Lindsay reluctantly agreed to the testing so she could continue to participate in her clubs. (She tested negative.) But she and another student, Daniel James, decided to sue the Tecumseh school district. They argued that the drug-testing policy violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under the law.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the school district. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that “a student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment, where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.” He added that the urine analysis tests for illegal drugs were minimally invasive and were therefore “a reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren.”

Impact: The decision gives schools broad powers to conduct random drug testing. It expands upon the Court’s 1995 ruling in Vernonia School District v. Acton, a case from Oregon, that said random drug testing of only school athletes is constitutional. As of 2016, almost 38 percent of school districts nationwide had a random drug testing policy in place for middle and high school students, according to a federal survey.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the school district. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that “a student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment, where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.” He added that the urine analysis tests for illegal drugs were minimally invasive. Therefore, they were “a reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren.”

Impact: The decision gives schools broad powers to conduct random drug testing. It expands upon the Court’s 1995 ruling in Vernonia School District v. Acton, a case from Oregon, that said random drug testing of only school athletes is constitutional. As of 2016, almost 38 percent of school districts nationwide had a random drug testing policy in place for middle and high school students, according to a federal survey.

Issue: Affirmative action in college

Bottom Line: Colleges can use race as a factor in admissions.

Background: In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a White Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate G.P.A. and good standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school’s affirmative action policy, which considered race as a factor in admissions.

Michigan and many other universities use affirmative action to increase the diversity in their classes. Grutter claimed that Michigan admitted less qualified applicants of color in violation of federal civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens “equal protection” under the law.

Ruling: In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. “Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” the Court said.

The Court emphasized that the University of Michigan’s policy was acceptable because the school conducted a thorough review of each applicant’s qualifications and didn’t use racial quotas—meaning it didn’t set aside a specific number of spots for applicants of any race.

Issue: Affirmative action in college

Bottom Line: Colleges can use race as a factor in admissions.

Background: In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a White Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter had a 3.8 undergraduate G.P.A. and good standardized test scores. She sued the university over the law school’s affirmative action policy. The university considered race as a factor in admissions.

Michigan and many other universities use affirmative action to increase the diversity in their classes. Grutter claimed that Michigan admitted less qualified applicants of color in violation of federal civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens “equal protection” under the law.

Ruling: In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. “Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” the Court said.

The Court emphasized that the University of Michigan’s policy was acceptable because the school conducted a thorough review of each applicant’s qualifications and didn’t use racial quotas. That means that the school didn’t set aside a specific number of spots for applicants of any race.

Impact: Affirmative action, which has its origins in a 1961 executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy, continues to be a contentious issue, with opponents charging that it amounts to reverse discrimination. Voters in eight states—California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—have approved laws banning affirmative action in public education.

Legal challenges over affirmative action in higher education continue, and the Court has repeatedly upheld the use of race as one of many factors to consider. But the Supreme Court is expected to soon decide whether to hear a new case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, that experts say could end affirmative action altogether, given the Court’s current conservative majority. The plaintiffs contend that Harvard holds Asian American applicants to a higher standard and effectively caps their numbers.

“This decision matters a great deal to young people,” says Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School. “If affirmative action were to end, it would dramatically reshape our institutions of higher education.”

Impact: Affirmative action has its origins in a 1961 executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy. It continues to be a debated issue. Opponents claim that it amounts to reverse discrimination. Voters in eight states—California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—have approved laws banning affirmative action in public education.

Legal challenges over affirmative action in higher education continue. The Court has repeatedly upheld the use of race as one of many factors to consider. But the Supreme Court is expected to soon decide whether to hear a new case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. Experts say this case could end affirmative action altogether, given the Court’s current conservative majority. The plaintiffs argue that Harvard holds Asian American applicants to a higher standard and effectively caps their numbers.

“This decision matters a great deal to young people,” says Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School. “If affirmative action were to end, it would dramatically reshape our institutions of higher education.”