10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know, Part 1

The Supreme Court of the United States has had the last word on some of the most important legal questions in American history: Can separate ever really be equal? Is flag burning protected by our right to freedom of speech? Is the death penalty a “cruel and unusual punishment”?

And though it may seem like the nine justices—who deliberate in secret and serve lifetime appointments—live in a world far removed from your own, many of the cases they decide directly affect you, both as a teen and as a student.

In a landmark 1967 case known as In re Gault (“in re” is Latin for “in reference to”), which concerned the arrest of a 15-year-old boy named Gerald Gault, the Supreme Court established for the first time that teenagers have distinct rights under the Constitution. Since then, the justices have ruled on a variety of issues involving people under 18—from freedom of speech and privacy rights at school to protections for minors in the legal system.

This two-part article examines 10 of these cases and why they matter to you. Here are the first five cases.

The Supreme Court of the United States has had the last word on some of the most important legal questions in American history. That includes: Can separate ever really be equal? Is flag burning protected by our right to freedom of speech? Is the death penalty a “cruel and unusual punishment”?

The nine justices do most of their work in secret and serve lifetime appointments. It may even seem like they live in a world far removed from your own. But many of the cases they decide directly affect you, both as a teen and as a student.

A landmark 1967 case known as In re Gault (“in re” is Latin for “in reference to”) concerned the arrest of a 15-year-old boy named Gerald Gault. In it, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that teenagers have distinct rights under the Constitution. Since then, the justices have ruled on a variety of issues involving people under 18. That includes everything from freedom of speech and privacy rights at school to protections for minors in the legal system.

This two-part article examines 10 of these cases and why they matter to you. Here are the first five cases.

ISSUE: Freedom of speech at school

BOTTOM LINE: You have the right to express yourself-up to a point.

BACKGROUND: In December 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker (above) and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the Vietnam War. School officials told them to remove the armbands, and when they refused, the teens—John, 15; Mary Beth, 13; and Chris, 16—were suspended. With their parents, they sued the school district, claiming it had violated their First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

RULING: The Supreme Court sided with the students. Students and teachers don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court said.

The Court did not, however, grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school’s need to keep order: As long as an act of expression doesn’t disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the rights of others, it’s acceptable.

ISSUE: Freedom of speech at school

BOTTOM LINE: You have the right to express yourself-up to a point.

BACKGROUND: In December 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker (above) and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa. This action was in protest of the Vietnam War. School officials told them to remove the armbands, but they refused. As a result, the teens—John, 15; Mary Beth, 13; and Chris, 16—were suspended. With their parents, they sued the school district. They claimed the district had violated their First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

RULING: The Supreme Court sided with the students. Students and teachers don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court said.

But the Court did not grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school’s need to keep order. So, as long as an act of expression doesn’t disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the rights of others, it’s acceptable.

IMPACT: In 1986, applying the “disruption test” from the Tinker case, the Court upheld the suspension of Matthew Fraser, a 17-year-old senior at Bethel High School in Tacoma, Washington, who gave a school speech containing sexual innuendos (Bethel School District v. Fraser). The Court said “it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.”

Lower courts have relied on Tinker in rulings on school attire, allowing nose rings and dyed hair, for example, but forbidding a T-shirt displaying a Confederate flag.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can limit student speech that seems to advocate illegal drug use (Morse v. Frederick). The case involved an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska who was suspended for holding a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while standing across the street from the school during the Olympic torch relay in 2002.

IMPACT: In 1986, applying the “disruption test” from the Tinker case, the Court upheld the suspension of Matthew Fraser. The then 17-year-old senior at Bethel High School in Tacoma, Washington, gave a school speech containing sexual innuendos. The Court said in Bethel School District v. Fraser, “it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.”

Lower courts have relied on Tinker in rulings on school attire. For example, it’s been referenced to allow nose rings and dyed hair. It’s also been used to ban a student from wearing a T-shirt displaying a Confederate flag.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can limit student speech that seems to promote illegal drug use. The case, Morse v. Frederick, involved an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska. The student was suspended for holding a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while standing across the street from the school during the Olympic torch relay in 2002.

ISSUE: Racial segregation in schools

BOTTOM LINE: Segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

BACKGROUND: In 1950, Oliver Brown tried to enroll his 7-year-old daughter in the school near their home in Topeka, Kansas. But schools in Kansas—and 20 other states, including all of the South—were then segregated and Linda Brown, who was Black, was turned away. Since the schools for Black children were vastly inferior, Oliver Brown sued the school board.

At the time, racial segregation of schools, transportation, restaurants, and movie theaters was the law in many parts of the country. In 1896, the Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, had established the doctrine of “separate but equal,” which provided the legal underpinning for segregation.

RULING: On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The landmark ruling reversed the Court’s position on segregation. “In the field of public education,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

IMPACT: Seeing the Brown ruling as an attack on their way of life, most Southern lawmakers refused to accept it. Many places shut down public schools for years rather than integrate.

Over the next few decades, however, segregated school districts, including in the South, gradually accepted Brown, and even though the ruling refers specifically to schools, it became the legal basis for ending legal segregation in all aspects of life.

“Brown was the most important ruling affecting American race relations in a positive way,” says Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School in New York.

The Brown decision prompted many people in the North, which had not been legally segregated, to push for more diverse schools. But in the seven decades since the Brown ruling, as more districts dropped programs designed to promote integration, more schools have become segregated in practice, if not by law. According to data from the National Center on Educational Statistics, more than 70 percent of Black students in 2016 went to schools where more than 60 percent of the students were people of color.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, must stop using race in deciding which schools to send students to—even though the purpose of this consideration was to prevent re-segregation of the school systems. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

ISSUE: Racial segregation in schools

BOTTOM LINE: Segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

BACKGROUND: In 1950, Oliver Brown tried to enroll his 7-year-old daughter in the school near their home in Topeka, Kansas. But schools in Kansas—and 20 other states, including all of the South—were then segregated. As a result, Linda Brown, who was Black, was turned away. Since the schools for Black children were vastly inferior, Oliver Brown sued the school board.

At the time, racial segregation of schools, transportation, restaurants, and movie theaters was the law in many parts of the country. In 1896, the Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, had established the doctrine of “separate but equal.” This ruling provided the legal underpinning for segregation.

RULING: On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The landmark ruling reversed the Court’s position on segregation. “In the field of public education,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

IMPACT: Seeing the Brown ruling as an attack on their way of life, most Southern lawmakers refused to accept it. Many places shut down public schools for years rather than integrate.

But segregated school districts, including in the South, gradually accepted Brown over the next few decades. And even though the ruling refers specifically to schools, it became the legal basis for ending legal segregation in all aspects of life.

“Brown was the most important ruling affecting American race relations in a positive way,” says Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School in New York.

The North had not been legally segregated. Still, the Brown decision prompted many Northerners to push for more diverse schools. But in the seven decades since the Brown ruling, more districts dropped programs designed to promote integration. In turn, more schools have become segregated in practice, if not by law. According to data from the National Center on Educational Statistics, more than 70 percent of Black students in 2016 went to schools where more than 60 percent of the students were people of color.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, must stop using race in deciding which schools to send students to, even though the purpose of this consideration was to prevent re-segregation of the school systems. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

ISSUE: School prayer

BOTTOM LINE: Public schools can’t sponsor religious activities like group prayer.

BACKGROUND: A Texas school district allowed a student “chaplain,” who had been elected by fellow students, to lead a prayer over the public-address system before home football games. Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

ISSUE: School prayer

BOTTOM LINE: Public schools can’t sponsor religious activities like group prayer.

BACKGROUND: A Texas school district allowed a student “chaplain” to lead a prayer over the public-address system before home football games. The student chaplain had been elected by fellow students. Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district. They claimed the district violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

ISSUE: Privacy rights at school

BOTTOM LINE: The Court made it harder for schools to conduct invasive searches.

BACKGROUND: Savana Redding was in eighth grade the day a school nurse and a secretary at Safford Middle School in Arizona asked the 13-year-old to strip down to her bra and underwear.

They were acting on orders from the assistant principal, who had gotten a tip that Savana was hiding prescription-strength ibuprofen pills. The tip turned out to be false, but the school, which has a zero-tolerance drug policy, said the strip search was justified. Savana’s mother, April Redding, sued. Redding’s lawyers argued that Savana was humiliated and that her Fourth Amendment right to be protected against “unreasonable searches” was violated.

ISSUE: Privacy rights at school

BOTTOM LINE: The Court made it harder for schools to conduct invasive searches.

BACKGROUND: Savana Redding was in eighth grade the day a school nurse and a secretary at Safford Middle School in Arizona asked the 13-year-old to strip down to her bra and underwear.

They were acting on orders from the assistant principal. The assistant principal had gotten a tip that Savana was hiding prescription-strength ibuprofen pills. The tip turned out to be false. The school has a zero-tolerance drug policy. It said the strip search was justified. Savana’s mother, April Redding, sued. Redding’s lawyers argued that Savana was humiliated and that her Fourth Amendment right to be protected against “unreasonable searches” was violated.

RULING: In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the school had violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights because the “content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of the intrusion.” But it also said the school couldn’t be sued because the laws on student searches were unclear in 2003, when the search took place. The Court then clarified guidelines for intimate searches: School officials must consider factors like the student’s age, whether the drugs in question are dangerous enough to justify the search, and whether there is good reason to suspect that the student has hidden them in an intimate place on the body.

IMPACT: The Redding ruling elaborates on New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985). In that case, the Court said that schools have the right to search students’ possessions, including backpacks and lockers, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a rule has been broken. That ruling didn’t mention anything about intimate body searches.

Many states, including New Jersey, California, and Iowa, have passed legislation prohibiting strip searches of students under any circumstances, and Wisconsin treats such searches as a criminal act.

RULING: In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the school had violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights because the “content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of the intrusion.” But it also said the school couldn’t be sued because the laws on student searches were unclear in 2003, when the search took place. The Court then clarified guidelines for intimate searches. Now, school officials must consider factors like the student’s age, whether the drugs in question are dangerous enough to justify the search, and whether there is good reason to suspect that the student has hidden them in an intimate place on the body.

IMPACT: The Redding ruling elaborates on a 1985 case. In that case, the Court said that schools have the right to search students’ possessions, including backpacks and lockers, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a rule has been broken. That ruling didn’t mention anything about intimate body searches.

Many states have passed legislation banning strip searches of students under any circumstances. They include New Jersey, California, and Iowa. Wisconsin treats such searches as a criminal act.