Posted: September 13th, 2017

Legal research

Legal research

Project description
Please review and choose one of the law review case notes or articles posted on Moodle (in the “Final Assessment” folder) or find your own article or case note on a subject that interests you. Choose an article that you think you can work with and (hopefully) a topic that interests you.

Prepare a final paper that includes the following four sections. You can (and probably should) divide the paper up into sections, and may use the following headings:

1) Summary. (1-2 pages) A summary of the article or case note. Discuss the issue presented, the analysis, and the author’s arguments or opinion. Please provide the complete citation for the article at the beginning of your summary.

2) Additional Research/Case Brief. (1 page) Find and read at least one of the cases that is referenced in the article (or a case that you find on your own that concerns the precise issue raised by the article). Prepare a case brief for the case(s). Please provide the complete citation for each case at the beginning of each summary. Remember to check Shepards for subsequent history.

3) Analysis. (1-2 pages) Do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed by the author in the note or article you read? Why or why not? In your analysis, be sure to quote from and cite directly to the article and the cases you briefed. (If there are statutes relevant to your topic/article, feel free to discuss these as well and as necessary).

4) Metatext. (1-2 pages) Discuss the research and thought process you used in order to complete this assignment. Why did you choose the article you chose? How did you find the cases? Did you use Shepards to validate your research or look for subsequent history? What informed your perspective or analysis on this issue? Did your opinions change at all during the course of the assignment? What argument(s) did you find most convincing?

The above text is the assignment. I will also add a text below that can be used as the case for the assignment or can be a different case. Any questions ease email me

GATHERING AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE: FORTY-YEARS OF LANDMARK SCHOOL SPEECH CASES THROUGH THE EYES OF THOSE WHO WERE THERE: ARTICLE: Black Armbands, “Boobies” Bracelets and the Need to Protect Student Speech
Spring, 2013
Reporter: 81 UMKC L. Rev. 595
Length: 3463 words
Author: David L. Hudson Jr.*
* David L. Hudson Jr. teaches classes at Vanderbilt Law School and the Nashville School of Law.

LexisNexis Summary
… Under Tinker, school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast the speech will cause a substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of others. … Students have been punished for pro-gay t-shirts, anti-gay t-shirts, and facial jewelry. … School officials later justified their action by claiming a few boys in area schools made inappropriate comments and some teachers believed the bracelets trivialized breast cancer. … The students recognize another key parallel between the censorship of black armbands and the censorship of “boobies” bracelets. … In the Easton case, the school officials prohibited students from wearing the “boobies” bracelets but allowed students to wear the color pink as an acceptable way to speak about breast cancer.

Text
[*595]
Public school students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 1 The U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed this oft-cited phrase in its celebrated decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District-a case protecting the right of students to wear black peace armbands to express opposition to the Vietnam War. 2 Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky explained the importance of this passage: “This sentence powerfully conveys schools are not institutions immune from constitutional scrutiny: students retain their constitutional freedoms even when they cross the threshold into the school.” 3
Tinker remains the “high water mark” of student free-speech rights. 4 Under Tinker, school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast the speech will cause a substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of others. 5 The Court explained: “In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.” 6
This decision ushered in a sea change in public schools and awakened a generation of students to the reality of young people asserting their rights to free speech. 7 One of the Tinker litigants, Christopher Eckhardt, 8 expressed its importance: “What George (Washington) and the boys did for white males in 1776, what Abraham Lincoln did to
1 Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
2 Id.
3 Erwin Chemerinsky, Students Do Leave Their First Amendment Rights at the Schoolhouse Gates: What’s Left of Tinker?, 48 Drake L. Rev. 527, 527 (2000).
4 Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 374 (5th Cir. 2011);Broussard v. Sch. Bd. of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526, 1534 (E.D. Va. 1992).
5 Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 513-14.
6 Id. at 511.
7 David L. Hudson Jr., Let the Students Speak!: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools 69 (2011).

Hauser Lori
Page 2 of 5
81 UMKC L. Rev. 595, *597
a certain extent during the time of the Civil War for African-American males, what the women’s suffrage movement in the 1920s did for women, the Tinker case did for children in America.” 9
It created a new era of school litigation over dress codes, hair length, restrictions on newspapers and other forms of student expression. 10 Sometimes [*596] students won, and sometimes they lost. But the decision certainly created an environment conducive to respecting student rights on a much more serious level.
In later years, a more conservative Supreme Court created exceptions to Tinker for vulgar and lewd speech, 11 school-sponsored expression as opposed to student-initiated expression, 12 and for student speech that promotes illegal drug use. 13 Despite these “supreme retractions,” 14 Tinker remains good law and the seminal First Amendment case for K-12 public school students. Reflecting on the case at the “Gathering at the Schoolhouse Gate” symposium at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and their attorney Dan Johnston spoke about the case and its continued impact. 15
Yet the spirit of Tinker remains imperiled in an age of censorship, zero tolerance, 16 and conformity. 17 School officials have prohibited students from wearing American flag t-shirts, 18 rosary beads, 19 t-shirts in support of slain classmates, 20 and t- shirts of a Presidential candidate. 21 Students have been punished for pro-gay t-shirts, 22 anti-gay t-shirts, 23 and facial jewelry. 24 Even more outrageous, a few students have been prohibited from wearing
8 Tragically, Eckhardt died in December 2012. See David L. Hudson Jr., Christopher Eckhardt Left His Mark as First Amendment Litigant, First Amendment Center (Mar. 3, 2013), http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/christopher-eckhardt-left- his-mark-as-student-speech-litigant.
9 David L. Hudson Jr., On 30-Year Anniversary, Tinker Participants Look Back at Landmark Case, First Amendment Center (Feb. 24, 1999), http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/on-30-year-anniversary-tinker-participants-look- back-at-landmark-case.
10 Id.
11 Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
12 Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
13 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
14 Hudson, supra note 7, at 85-104.
15 David L. Hudson Jr., Student Litigants Reflect on Tinker Case, First Amendment Center (Sept. 21, 2012), http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/student- litigants-reflect-on-tinker-case.
16 John W. Whitehead, Arrested Development: The Criminalization of America’s Schoolchildren, The Rutherford Inst. (May 7, 2012), https://www.rutherford.org/publications

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂