Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Osman ValdezBraxton GirtmanHudson ReddingMrs. Wash Wash Government     2/7/13
MORSE V. FREDERICK        AKABONG HiTS 4 JESUS CASE
• At a school-supervised event, petitioner  Morse, the principal, saw students with a  banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,”...
• Morse then confiscated the banner and later  suspended him.• “The school superintendent upheld the  suspension, explaini...
• “Frederick filed suit under 42 U.S.C §1983,  alleging that the school board and Morse had  violated his First Amendment ...
• “The District court granted petitioners  summary judgment, ruling that they were  entitled to qualified immunity and tha...
• “Accepting that Frederick acted during a  school-authorized activity and that the banner  expressed a positive sentiment...
• “It also concluded that Morse was not entitled  to qualified immunity because Frederick’s  right to display the banner w...
Opinions• I think that he had the right to hold the sign  up, because I see no wrong in what he is  doing. I think it was ...
• http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arc  hives/06-278_All.pdf
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Osman valdez cases

197 views

Published on

Cases

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Osman valdez cases

  1. 1. Osman ValdezBraxton GirtmanHudson ReddingMrs. Wash Wash Government 2/7/13
  2. 2. MORSE V. FREDERICK AKABONG HiTS 4 JESUS CASE
  3. 3. • At a school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the principal, saw students with a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she said was promoting illegal drug use.• Morse told the students to take down the banner. One of the students(Frederick) who had brought the banner to the event refused.
  4. 4. • Morse then confiscated the banner and later suspended him.• “The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining that Frederick was disciplined, because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy.”
  5. 5. • “Frederick filed suit under 42 U.S.C §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights.”
  6. 6. • “The District court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights.”
  7. 7. • “Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption.”
  8. 8. • “It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick’s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse’s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional.”
  9. 9. Opinions• I think that he had the right to hold the sign up, because I see no wrong in what he is doing. I think it was a mistake to suspend him for nothing.
  10. 10. • http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arc hives/06-278_All.pdf

×