Law Set 2

*Doninger* vs. Neihoff

*not a supreme court case* -Date: 2011 -State: Connecticut -Facts: Doninger was barred from the student government after she called the superintendent and other school officials "dbags" on a LiveJournal blog post that was written while off-campus, pertaining to the cancellation of a "Battle of the Bands" event -Court Ruling: Neihoff wins because the School District is allowed to regulate off-campus speech when a student's speech "foreseeableably creates a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment." Her actions were classified as "disruptive" because it called on members of the community to complain to the school district about the cancellation of the "Battle of the Bands"

*Shelton* vs. Tucker

-Date: 1960 -State: Arkansas -Facts: An Arkansas statute required teachers, as a condition of employment in a state-supported school or college, to file an affidavit listing every organization to which he/she has belonged, or regularly contributed to, within the preceding five years, but they have no job security. Shelton, an Arkansas teacher for twenty-five years, refused to file an affidavit. Member of NAACP -Court Ruling: Shelton wins 5 to 4. While it is the right of the State to investigate the competence of those whom it hires to teach in its schools, to compel a teacher to disclose his/her associational ties is to impair his/her right of free association (14th Amendment)

*Pickering* vs. Board of Education

-Date: 1968 -State: Illinois -Facts: Marvin L. Pickering, appellant and a teacher in the School District, wrote a letter criticizing the School Board's handling of financial resources between the school's educational and athletic programs -Court Ruling: Pickering wins 8 to 1. The dismissal of a public school teacher for public statements regarding issues of public importance, without showing that his statements were knowingly or recklessly false, violates the First Amendment.

*Tinker* vs. Des Moines

-Date: 1969 -State: Iowa -Facts: a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war; they decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve; the principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension; Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home; John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest; through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression -Court Ruling: 7-2 in favor of the students, claiming that students don't lose their first amendment rights at the gate of the school

*Grayned* vs. City of Rockford

-Date: 1972 -State: Illinois -Facts: Grayned participated in a demonstration that allegedly violated the city of Rockford's anti-picketing and anti-noise ordinances. Demonstration dealt with racial equality in education. Noisy demonstration caused hundreds of students to jump up from their desks and line up at the windows to watch -Court Ruling: Grayned's conviction under the anti-picketing ordinance was reversed, while his conviction under the anti-noise ordinance was upheld. Although the Court upheld the anti-noise ordinance, it gave a ringing endorsement to the right of access to "a public forum," affirming that citizens have a broad right to freely express their political views in a variety of public places.

*Goss* vs. Lopez

-Date: 1975 -State: Ohio -Facts: Nine students at two high schools and one junior high school in Columbus, Ohio, were given 10-day suspensions from school. The school principals did not hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions, and Ohio law did not require them to do so. The principals' actions were challenged, and a federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. -Court Ruling: Lopez wins 5 to 4. Because the United States has chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens, it could not withdraw that right "on grounds of misconduct," at least not without conducting the fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct had occurred. The students' entitlements to education was a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Due Process Clause. The Court found that students facing a suspension of 10 days or less should be given notice of their suspension and afforded some kind of hearing.

*Ingraham* vs. Wright

-Date: 1977 -State: Florida -Facts: Ingraham was forcibly placed, face-down, on the top of a table. Arms and legs restrained. Spanking paddle used to hit Ingraham more than 20 times. The paddling was so severe that he suffered a hematoma requiring medical attention. -Court Ruling: Wright wins 5 to 4. Big "win" for "in loco parentis". The 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" does not apply to non-criminal contexts, like school discipline. "In view of the low incidence of abuse, the openness of schools, and the common law safeguards that already exist, the risk of error that may result in violation is minimal. Imposing additional administrative safeguards, as a constitutional requirement, might reduce that risk marginally, but it would also entail a significant intrusion into an area of primary educational responsibility." The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment does not require notice or a hearing prior to imposition of such punishment

*Ambach* vs. Norwick

-Date: 1979 -State: New York -Facts: Susan Norwick and Tarja Dachinger were both foreign nationals who had resided in the United States for many years and were married to United States citizens. Both were eligible for citizenship, but had refused to apply. Both had applied for certification as public school teachers in New York State. New York law prohibited the certification of non-citizen teachers who had not sought citizenship. Both applications were denied certification solely on that ground. Norwick filed suit in federal district court, which Dachinger later joined. -Court Ruling: Ambach wins 5 to 4. States are justified in barring aliens from employment in certain positions within the government. Teachers, especially, have "an obligation to promote civic virtues and understanding in their classes, regardless of the subject taught." The statute only affected non-citizens who did not want to seek citizenship.

*Pico* vs. Island Trees

-Date: 1982 -State: New York -Facts: The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education ordered that certain books be removed from its junior high and high school libraries. The Board said these books were, "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." -Court Ruling: Pico wins 5 to 4. As centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. The Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their content.

*TLO* vs. New Jersey

-Date: 1985 -State: New Jersey -Facts: T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials searched her purse suspecting she had cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. money. T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana. -Court Ruling: New Jersey wins 6-3, but the Court requested that the parties argue the additional question of whether the assistant principal violated the Fourth Amendment in opening T.L.O's purse.

*Bethel* vs. Fraser

-Date: 1986 -State: Washington -Facts: At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days. -Court Ruling: 7-2 in favor of the school district; the Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

*Hazelwood* vs. Kuhlmeier

-Date: 1988 -State: Missouri -Facts: The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court. -Court Ruling: 5-3 in favor of the school district; the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this test.

*Vernonia* vs. Acton

-Date: 1995 -State: Oregon -Facts: An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing. -Court Ruling: Vernonia School District wins 6 to 3. The level of privacy that is compromised by giving a urine samples is negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to using a public restroom, and the results of the urinalysis are viewed by limited authorities. The school's concern for the safety (i.e. sports-related injuries) of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal intrusion of student-athletes' privacy.

*Earls* vs. BOE Pottawatomie

-Date: 2002 -State: Oklahoma -Facts: The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School students and their parents brought suit, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. -Court Ruling: Board of Education Pottawatomie wins 5 to 4. The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students. Obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive to the students.

*Roper* vs. Simmons

-Date: 2005 -State: Missouri -Facts: Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of appeals to state and federal courts lasted until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. Then, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmons' execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally ill. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally ill violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky had relied on a finding that a majority of Americans did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people. -Court Ruling: Simmons wins 5 to 4. Ruled that "standards of decency" have evolved, and that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the 8th Amendment. The majority agreed that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors.

*Morse* vs. Frederick

-Date: 2007 -State: Alaska -Facts: At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick sued alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. -Court Ruling: 5-4 in favor of the school district; ruled that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied.

*Redding* vs. Safford

-Date: 2009 -State: Arizona -Facts: Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Savana might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy. Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court. She alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. -Court Ruling: Redding Wins 7 to 2. Measures used by school officials must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." Gravity of the object of the search must match the intrusiveness of the search (i.e. doing a strip search for a stolen paper clip vs. doing a strip search for an illegal weapon). While this case passes TLO Guidelines, the proportionality is out of whack.

*Layshock* vs. Hermitage School District

-Date: 2011 -State: Pennsylvania -Facts: High school senior Justin Layshock created a MySpace page parodying his principal, Eric Trosch. Layshock used a photograph of Trosch and answered a series of survey questions to fill out the profile that mocked the principal. School administrators learned and questioned Layshock about the profile, and he admitted to creating it and apologized to Trosch. Later, Layshock learned he was being suspended and placed in an alternative education program for the remainder of the year; Layshock's parents sued the school district, arguing that punishing their son for off-campus speech was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The school countered that while his speech was made off-campus, it still made its way into the school and disrupted operations. -Court Ruling: Supreme Court prohibits a school from punishing students for off-campus speech. Both Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier concern speech that occurs within a school, while Morse v. Frederick and Bethel School District v. Fraser concern speech at school-sponsored events. Secondly, the brief argued that while Layshock's speech was lewd and offensive, it did not create a sizable disruption to the school.

*Riley* vs. California

-Date: 2014 -State: California -Facts: Riley was driving with expired license registration tags and his driver's license was suspended. Car was searched before it was impounded. During the search, police located two guns and analyzed videos and photographs on Riley's cell phone. -Court Ruling: Riley wins 9 to 0. The purpose of a warrantless search is to protect police officer safety and preserve evidence, neither of which were at stake in the search of Riley's cell phone. His cell phone could not have be used as a weapon to harm the arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a "Faraday bag." Cell phones are "minicomputers filled with massive amounts of private information." This counted as a "search."

Free Speech Guide (Sakai)

-Is it speech (including "symbolic" speech): No (No Constitutional Protection ~ Tinker), Yes -Is it vulger/age appropriate: No, Yes (No Constitutional Protection ~ Fraser) -Does it take place within a school-sponsored activity: No (Tinker Test ~ Kuhlmeier), Yes -Does it take place in a public forum: Yes (Tinker Test Kuhlmeier), No (School may restrict speech, with educational justification, including consistency with school's educational mission ~Kuhlmeier, Morse)

Student Rights vs. In Loco Parentis

-Students Rights refers to their civil rights to freedom of speech, petition, assembly, expression, etc. Their civil liberties should not be withheld because they are a minor. -In Loco Parentis refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some responsibilities of a parent. First, it allows institutions (colleges and schools) to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.

Pickering Balance

1) Is the speech of public concern? 2) Is the speech disruptive (Tinker Test)?

TLO guidelines

1. Was the search justified at its inception? 2. Was the search, as it was actually conducted, related to the object of the search?

School Sponsored Activity

An activity that takes place on school grounds, is paid for by the school, is chaperoned by the school, or is under the guidance of the school.

Capital Punishment for Juveniles (Roper)

Capital punishment for people who committed a crime under the age of 18 is considered cruel and unusual punishment

Pico Censorship Framework

Certain books cannot be censored just because some people find their content offensive or contrary to their own beliefs.

Matter of Public Concern

-If the court determines the public employee is speaking more as a citizen, the court considers the speech to be on a matter of public concern. -If the court determines that the employee is speaking more as an employee, the court finds that the speech is a personal employment grievance or private speech.

Conduct vs. Speech

-Speech refers to the verbal expression of ones beliefs. All speech should be protected under first amendment. -Conduct refers to the actions that follow speech. Conduct is not always protected under the first amendment.

Freedom of Association (Shelton)

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.

Pedagogical Justification (Hazelwood)

If a school wants to uphold a certain level or prestige or respect, they are allowed to restrict language that falls below their level of standards. Pedagogical Justification refers to the ability of teachers/educators to censor language that prohibits the direct learning of other students.

State Map of Corporal Punishment

Mainly allowed in the south and prohibited in the north. some mid west states allow.

Teacher Citizenship (Ambach)

New York law prohibited the certification of non-citizen teachers who had not sought citizenship. Since teachers are the models of civic virtue and understanding for students, they must be United States citizens.

Short Term Suspension/Long Term Suspension-Expulsion

Short Term Suspension is a number of days a student cannot come to school. Usually no more than 10. A Long Term Suspension/Expulsion lasts a longer period of time and includes extracurricular activities

Proportionality: Invasiveness/Seriousness (of object of search)

Gravity of the object of the search must match the intrusiveness of the search. For example, doing a strip search for a paper clip vs. doing a strip search for an illegal weapon.

Black Dissent (Tinker)

Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students.

Examples from MySpace/Internet Cases

Layshock, Mountain State, Doninger, Kowalski

Content Neutrality

Publications that are without bias, representing all views fairly.

Age Inappropriate Speech (Fraser)

Refers to speech that is not appropriate or safe for a certain age group to hear. For example, a person should not be speaking of sexual innuendoes to a group of 10 year olds.

Search and Seizure Clause (Fourth Amendment)

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. Some countries have provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy.

Competitive Extra Curricular Activities (Earls - ACLU pamphlet)

Students participating in competitive extra curricular activities (high intensity sports) are the only ones being drug tested.

Goss Due Process Framework

The Court found that students facing a suspension of 10 days or less should be given notice of their suspension and afforded some kind of hearing.

Viewpoint Discrimination

The First Amendment sharply limits the government from restricting speech based on the views expressed in that speech.

Powell Dissent (Goss)

The Ohio statute had granted the right to education, but not the right to education without discipline. He challenged the court's finding that the suspension was severe enough to bring the Due Process Clause into play.

Symbolic Speech

Used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it.

Fishing Expedition

Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Free Speech Clause (First Amendment)

The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence

Tinker Test

They must reasonably forecast, based on evidence and not on an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance," that the student expression would lead to either (a) a substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) an invasion of the rights of others.

Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment)

is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.

Hecklers Veto

occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators (reacting party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.

Due Process (In Corporal Punishment Context)

people subjected to corporal punishment (death) have the right to plea for their case and ask for time to defend themselves. Or ask for appeals

Strip Search (Safford)

search (someone) for concealed items, typically drugs or weapons, in a way that involves the removal of all their clothes.

Probable Cause

the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to obtain a warrant for, or as an exception to the warrant requirements for, making an arrest or conducting a personal or property search, etc. when criminal charges are being considered.

Cyberbullying (Kowalski)

using the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate

*Blue Mountain* vs. JS

*not a supreme court case* -Date: 2011 -State: Pennsylvania -Facts: Blue Mountain School District suspended two eighth-grade students after they created a fake MySpace profile for James McGonigle, principal. The MySpace page did not identify McGonigle by name, but it included his picture from the school district's website and identified the person depicted as a "principal." According to court documents, the profile characterized the principal as a sex-obsessed pedophile, and it was laced with profanity and other negative comments about McGonigle and his family. The school determined that, based on the creation of the fake profile, the two students had violated the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members. It also determined that the students violated the school's computer use policy, which informs students that they cannot use copyrighted material without permission, by obtaining McGonigle's photo from the school district's website. As a result, the school suspended the two students for ten days out-of-school. One of the students, going by the initials "J.S.", sued the school district, McMonigle, and the school district superintendent for violating her First Amendment rights. She argued, among other things, that the school could not constitutionally punish her for out-of-school speech that did not cause a disruption of classes or school administration. -Court Ruling: J.S. wins because the school violated her first amendment free speech rights; "The Bethel v. Fraser decision did not give the Blue Mountain School District the authority to punish J.S. for her off-campus speech."

*Kowalski* vs. Berkley County Schools

*not a supreme court case* -Date: 2011 -State: West Virginia -Facts: Kowalski was suspended by her high school because of remarks she made about another student on a MySpace discussion page calling her "Students Against Sluts Herpes" or "Students Against Shay's Herpes. She was also banned from attending school events in which she was not a direct participant; was removed from the cheerleading team; and banned from crowning the next "Queen of Charm". This occurred while she was in her own home, on her own computer -Court Ruling: Ruled that suspension was constitutional because Kowalski "used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate, and did so in a manner that was sufficiently connected to the school environment." Only "invited" high school students to the MySpace page; It was foreseeable that the effects of the "off-campus conduct" would reach the school; and that it would create a substantial disruption at the school.

Suspicionless Searches

A suspicionless search is where you are searched by authorities not because they think you've done something wrong, but because of some other criteria, normally due to where you are (ex. airports)

Minimal Due Process

At a minimum, due process requires that a party in a judicial hearing receive notice defining the accusations against them

Expansion of Drug Testing (Earls)

Because drug testing usually only requires a urine sample, which can be retrieved in privacy, the same as normally going to the bathroom, it is considered constitutional. However, since random drug testing often does not prevent the use of drugs, it can be damaging for adults/teen relationships.

Circuit Court Cases

Circuit Courts are where jury trials are held. Circuit Courts generally handle more serious criminal cases and major civil cases. These include juvenile and other family law cases such as divorce, custody and child support. Layshock, Blue Mountain, Doninger, and Kowalski were all circuit court cases.

Cell Phone Searches (Riley)

The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested. A cell phone is considered a search because it contains a lot of personal information.

"Special Needs" (Vernonia)

The public school is a context that has "special needs." When something exists independent of law enforcement. Athletes must be drug tested to prevent injury.

Public Forum

In United States constitutional law, a public forum is a government-owned property that is open to public expression and assembly.

Alito and Thomas Concurrence (Morse)

In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech.

Schools Educational Mission (Morse)

In the Morse case, the school felt like it was their educational mission to educate students about the dangers of illegal drugs and to discourage their use. Frederick clearly violated this mission.

Education as Property Right (Goss)

The United States offers everyone the right to education, which cannot be taken away for conduct. It has become a property right - available to ALL humans. A civil liberty.

Randomized Drug Testing

When people are subjected to drug testing either through urine or blood in order to ensure safety or honesty. Typical in sports domains

Corporal Punishment (Legal Status)

a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. only allowed in some cases. not for minors.

Reasonable Cause

a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than a "hunch," it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts" and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

Impartiality

a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons

Hearing

an opportunity to state one's case