SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx

SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROY
QUESTION PRESENTED
Should this reverse the lower court’s denial of summary
judgment to a public high school student who suffered monetary
loss as a result of being suspended from a public high school for
exercising her First Amendment rights in wearing a anti-war t-
shirt and smearing artificial blood on a white shirt during a
school sponsored assembly on current events, where students
had no reaction to the blood smearing whatsoever, and less than
10% of the present students booed or cheered when she
displayed her anti-war shirt?
FACTS
Appellant, Sarah LeRoy, a former Syracuse public high
school student, was suspended during spring 2015 and had to
attend and pay for private schooling as a result of her
suspension for exercising her First Amendment rights by her
wearing an anti-war t-shirt in current events assembly at school
to which less than 10% of students even reacted, and to which
none reacted to her smearing of artificial blood on a white shirt.
Twenty students of 250 stood up and cheered and booed; some
told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
Less than 10% of the students present at this school-sponsored
current events assembly stood up and booed or cheered,
although some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.

While Ms. LeRoy smeared artificial blood on her shirt during
the current events assembly, there was no reaction from the
crowd, who sat silent. Even when she displayed her anti-war t-
shirt, less than 10% of the students present booed, and many of
these cheered her on, yet there was no violence or greater
disturbance than this. R.6.
Ms. LeRoy was just expressing her constitutional right where
she smeared her shirt with red paint, after which she removed
the shirt and painted another with anti-war words while
shouting anti-war slogans. All the students did not react to her
case but only a few of the available students raised concerns.
Only about 20 reacted showing no much commotion was caused
due to her public expression of her thoughts on the war. R.19
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion
for summary judgment. Ms. LeRoy asks that this court reverse
this denial of summary judgment, and remand with instructions
to grant summary judgment, with injunctive relief and damages
for the school’s actions against her.
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion
ARGUMENT
MS. LEROY PROPERLY EXERCISED HER FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS
IN HER ACTIONS BEFORE THE STUDENT ASSMEBLY ON
CURRENT EVENTS AND THE DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY

SUSPENDED HER
TS Sarah LeRoy is entitled to a reversal of the lower court’s
denial of summary judgment summary judgment against the
defendant in her First Amendment claim.
GEN The U. S. courts grant summary judgment where, as here,
a case presents no genuine issues of fact that require resolution
at trial, and where the court can resolve the case as a matter of
law in favor of the moving party. Do not use boldFRCP Rule 56
(b);Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
The First Amendment of the constitution, through its
applicability to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,
guarantees free speech rights to citizens. U.S. Const. amends. I,
XIV. Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 (2012) allows claims against states
for damages arising from violations of federal civil rights and
for injunctive relief, such as the instant case
FACTORS: While public high school students’ free speech
rights are not co-extensive with the general public’s, courts
afford students reasonable protection to free expression,
especially for pure political speech that is not substantially
disruptive of the school’s educational mission. SeeTinker v.
Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 513 (1969).
Further, only sanctionably , lewd or vulgar, inappropriate
expressions of speech may be sanctioned. Bethel Sch. Dist. No.
403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
APPLY: Ms. LeRoy case has no substantial grounds for being
rejected hence the judgment below should be reversed in her
favor. The Fourteenth Amendment grants her the freedom of
speech and Const. amends. I, XIV. Title 42 U.S.C. §1983
(2012) provides for damages. Freedom of expression is provided
for students if they don’t cause major disruption of the general
public Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513. Freedom of expression can only
be sanctioned when vulgar language is proved to have been used

beyond reasonable minds Bethel, 478 U.S. at 675.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, this court should reverse the lower
court’s denial of her motion for grant summary judgment in her
claim of violation of her First Amendment rights against
defendants.
A. Ms. LeRoy’s application of red paint to her shirt was
symbolic speech to which there was no crowd reaction, no harm,
and as such this was a protected manifestation of her First
Amendment rights.
TS Sarah’s smearing of artificial blood on her shirt is a form of
political speech that caused no reaction from the assembly
crown and is therefore protected speech under the constitution
and not sanctionable. It was neither vulgar not an offensive act,
and it was not necessarily disruptive as no student reaction
occurred as a result.
GEN While a public school may sanction student activity that
is lewd, vulgar, obscene or otherwise unreasonably offensive,
this is only where, not as here, the students are of such an age
and maturity that it would be offensive to them. Bethel, 478
U.S. at 685; J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 2013 WL 4479229
at *8 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013).

FACTORS: Lewd, vulgar speech may be manifested through
symbolic or pure speech. Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. In addition,
the court has to balance the political nature of some allegedly
lewd or vulgar speech against its educational or political value.
Id.
ILLUS: For example, while one court saw fit to uphold a
sanction against a student’s election speech in a school-
sponsored assembly that was filled with sexual innuendo in both
spoken word and gestures, no court has held that the smearing
of artificial blood to a mature high-school audience with no
reaction has is sanctionable. See Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. Also,
while sexually offensive phrases on clothing, such as “I Love
Boobies” is also sanctionable, and Finally, vulgar or
inappropriate speech on t-shirts, such as two sailors kissing
with the caption “Read My Lips,” “Coed Naked” t-shirts,
“Marijuana—Legalize It!,” “Don’t Be A Dick!,” and “Coed
Naked Gerbils” is also sanctionable, again, political speech has
yet to be so sanctioned in our case law. SeeJ.A., 2013 WL
4479229 at *8. Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F. Supp.
157 (D.Mass.1994).
These courts reasoned that regulation and sanctions were
reasonably administered and framed so as to preserve a stable,
appropriate learning environment while balancing and
considering the students’ First Amendment protections.
SeeBethel, 478 U.S. at 685; J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8; Pyle,
861 F. Supp. at 167. These protections are even greater when
considering political speech instead of their sexual and
otherwise inappropriate subject matter.
APPLY Here, Sarah's t-shirts blood smearing is not properly
sanctionable. It was symbolic political speech at a school
sponsored event that might be entitled to protection under
Tinker
and Hazelwood, it was not sufficiently vulgar to be like the
“boobies” clothing or some of the vulgar and offensive

expressions in Pyle. See J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8; Pyle,
861 F. Supp. at 167.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Ms. LeRoy’s act of smearing
artificial blood on her shirt in a current events assembly to no
crowd reaction of mature high schoolers was not properly
sanctioned.
B. Ms. Leroy’s Display Of Her Antiwar T-Shirt In An
Assembly Was Pure And Symbolic Speech And, Despite A
Reaction Of Less Than 10% Of Those Present And No Violence
Erupting, The School Improperly Suspended Her For Exercising
Protected Speech Under The First Amendment.
TS: Sarah’s display of her anti-war t-shirt may not be
sanctioned as an offensive act. There was less reaction from the
gathering where less than 10% of the available members and no
disruption was caused. This shows that the school improperly
suspended her.
GEN: The First Amendment of the constitution, through its
guarantees free speech rights to citizens. This amendment
protects citizens against implication on grounds of what they
say should not cause violence or disrupt peace and people
generally. TOO GENERAL. ALSO, STICK TO TINKER
VIEW: The First Amendment guarantees free speech, and
especially protects political and even pure and symbolic
political speech within the public school environment. Public
schools must limit their regulation of such speech to situations
where critical events arise, such as a reasonable forecast of
substantial disruption of a school’s educational mission.

FACTORS: Public high school students’ free speech rights do
not stretch to the general public. However, courts afford
students reasonable protection to free expression, especially for
pure political speech that is not substantially disruptive of the
school’s educational mission. SeeTinker v. Des Moines Indep.
Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 513 (1969). However, lewd or
vulgar, inappropriate expressions of speech may be sanctioned.
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). USE
SHORT FORM FOR THESE CASES, NOT THE FULL
CITATION, OKK?ALSO, INCLUDE MORE FACTORS SUCH
AS SYMBOLIC SPEECH BEING AKIN TO PURE SPEECH
AND THAT POLITICAL SPEECH IS ENTITLED TO THE
HIGHEST DEGREE OF PROTECTION, EVEN WITHIN A
PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SETTING.
ILLUS: START WITH TINKER AS EXAMPLE, THEN
BETHEL. For example, one court saw fit to uphold a sanction
against a student’s election speech in a school-sponsored
assembly that was filled with sexual innuendo in both spoken
word and gestures. Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. In addition,
sexually offensive phrases on clothing, such as “I Love
Boobies” can be sanctioned. See J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8.
Finally, vulgar or inappropriate speech on t-shirts, such as two
sailors kissing with the caption “Read My Lips,” “Coed Naked”
t-shirts, “Marijuana—Legalize It!,” “Don’t Be A Dick!,” and
“Coed Naked Gerbils” can sanctioned. Pyle vs. South Hadley
Sch. Comm., 861 F. Supp. 157 (D.Mass .1994).
861F. Supp. At 167.
APPLY: Sarah’s smearing of artificial blood on her shirt may or

may not be sanctioned as a vulgar. Like the speech in Bethel,
which was filled with sexual innuendo and presented to the
class in an assembly, Sarah’s smearing fake blood on her shirt
was certainly offensive, but may not have been as offensive as
the acts in Bethel. See Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. Also, Sarah’s
smearing blood may not be as offensive to some as the “I Love
Boobies” T-shirt in J.A., but could be seen as grotesque by
some. See J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8. Finally, her smearing
of blood is probably more offensive than the t-shirts and
messages in Pyle about Co-ed Naked activities and Marijuana.
See Pyle, 861 F. Supp. at 167.SCRAP THIS. YOU SHOULD
BE APPLYING THE LAW FROM TINKER TO OUR FACTS.
YOU SHOULD BE INCLUDING GUILES AS AN
ILLUSTRATION AND APPLYING IT HERE AS WELL.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE VERY OFF BASE WITH THE
APPLY SECTION ESPECIALLY.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, this court should reverse the lower court’s
denial of Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment to Mr.
LeRoy against the defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
To: Partner
From:
Re: Sarah LeRoy School District Case
Date: ___, 2018
QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether public high school who suspended a public
high school student violate her First Amendment free and
political speech rights where she was a controversial is anti-
Trump, anti-war t-shirt and spoke fluently about political issues
and received fake blood on her shirt at a gathering of current
events. A group of students shouted booing while others
appeared out loud?
SHORT ANSWER
No, speaking aloud at a school event in subjects
conflicts with the school's organizing environment and can be
prevented by public schools from being facts that may
reasonably have led school authorities to predict a major
disruption or physical interference in school activities that may
be prevented by the public school. SeeTinker v. Des Moines
Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 513, 518 (1969).The courts
gave the school administration the authority to control the work
of students to protect public order within public schools. The
staining of artificial blood on her shirt has always been
offensive, and courts have given the right to public school to
prevent such acts. SeeBethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478
U.S. 675, 685 (1986).
FACTS
Our client, Sarah LeRoy, wishes to know whether she has a
good claim against the Syracuse School District for suspending
her from high school for ostensibly exercising her First
Amendment rights over wearing a controversial t-shirt and
smearing artificial blood on another shirt during a school-
sponsored event on current events during spring, 2017.
Sarah LeRoy wore a t-shirt at her high school to express
her political views about her involvement (Anti-Trump t-shirt).
On one school occasion, Sarah spoke loudly and waved her hand

in the air to emphasize her points. Then she took out a container
of red paint and flicked red on the front of her white shirt, and
there was no reaction from the students. Afterward, Sarah
removed her tinted white shirt, flipped another T-shirt and
prints of her own (Anti-War t-shirt) and shouted anti-war
statements. She has received some feedback with students of 10
students, about 20 students out of 250 interacting with her, such
as yelling at them to stop talking.
The school principal asked Sarah to take this shirt and to not
come with this t-shirt again. She came in the next day with the
same shirt. The school suspended her.
You have asked that I analyze whether Ms. LeRoy has a
good claim against the school district for violating her
constitutional rights.
DISCUSSION OF LAW
TS Sarah LeRoy may or may not succeed in her First
Amendment claim against the school district.
GEN :The First Amendment of the constitutition, through its
for injunctive relief.
FACTORS: Public high school students’ free speech rights are
not co-extensive with the general public’s. However, courts
However, lewd or vulgar, inappropriate expressions of speech
may be sanctioned. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478
U.S. 675 (1986).

APPLY: Here, [apply quickly the legal ideas to our facts—
very short!!]
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Sarah LeRoy may or may not
succeed in her First Amendment claim against the school
district.
A. Lewd, Vulgar or Offensive Speech
TS Sarah’s smearing of artificial blood on her shirt may or may
not be santionable as a vulgar, offensive act, even though it was
not necessarily disruptive as no student reaction occurred as a
result.
GEN A public school may sanction student activity that is
lewd, vulgar, obscene or otherwise unreasonably offensive.
Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685.
FACTORS: This depends on the age and maturity of the
students, and whether the regulation or sanction is reasonable.
Seeid.; J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8
(N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013).
ILLUSTRATION: For example, one court saw fit to uphold a
spoken word and gestures. Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. In addition,
sexually offensive phrases on clothing, such as “I Love
Boobies” is also sanctionable. SeeJ.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8.
Finally, vulgar or inappropriate speech on t-shirts, such as two
sailors kissing with the caption “Read My Lips,” “Coed Naked”
t-shirts, “Marijuana—Legalize It!,” “Don’t Be A Dick!,” and
“Coed Naked Gerbils” is also sanctionable. Pyle v. South
Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F. Supp. 157 (D.Mass.1994).
861 F. Supp. at 167.

APPLY: Sarah’s smearing of artificial blood on her shirt may or
may not be sanctionable as a vulgar, offensive act. Like the
speech in Bethel, which was filled with sexual innuendo and
presented to the class in an assembly, Sarah’s smearing fake
blood on her shirt was certainly offensive, but may not have
been as offensive as the acts in Bethel. SeeBethel, 478 U.S. at
685. Also, Sarah’s smearing blood may not be as offensive to
some as the “I Love Boobies” T-shirt in J.A., but could be seen
as grotesque by some. See J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8.
Finally, her smearing of blook is probably more offensive than
the t-shirts and messages in Pyle about Co-ed Naked activities
and Marijuana. SeePyle, 861 F. Supp. at 167.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is unclear whether Sarah’s blood
smearing was sanctionable by law.
B. Possible Materially Disruptive Speech from the Anti-War T-
shirt With Crowd Reaction.
TS:
Sarah’s anti-war t-shirt and statements in the school
assembly may be sanctionable as a disruptive speech, even if
may be considered as a pure, political speech.
GEN:
Public High School students do not shed their First
Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker, 393 U.S. at
506. In fact, the Supreme Court held in Tinker that public high
schools have the right to regulate school speech where there is a
reasonable forecast of substantial disruption of the school’s
educational purpose or mission. Id. at 513.
FACTORS:

Political speech is entitled to great protection. And
symbolic political speech, which is non-verbal speech, is “akin”
to pure political speech and entitled to comprehensive First
Amendment protections. Id. at 504. Undifferentiated fear of
disruption is insufficient to warrant squelching free speech in
public high schools and does not merit suspension. Id. at 508.
However, this will depend on whether or not the sanctions are
reasonable. However, it is imperative to appreciate the fact that
courts gave students reasonable protections to freely express
themselves especially for political speech provided they do not
disrupt the education mission of the schools. See, Tinker, 393
U.S. at 513. Elsewhere, public schools may sanction the actions
of the students. However, the school authority must have
reasonable evidence to prove that the actions are not related to
the purposes of education. See, Guiles ex rel. Lucas v.
Marineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Vt. 2004).
ILLUS:
Sarah LeRoy has reasonable claims against her school
for suspending her because she wore a controversial T-shirt-
sponsored events. This is because from the decision of the
previous case held that wearing a black armband in protest
against the government was quiet and passive and did not
disrupt anybody and neither did it infringe on the rights of
others. Similarly, by wearing a controversial T-shirt and
smearing artificial blood on the other, Sarah LeRoy did not
infringe on the rights of others and neither did she disrupt the
school activities since her actions were within the confines of
the first amendment with regard to the protection of free speech.
See, Tinker, 393U.S. 503 (1969). It is evident that the First
Amendment to the Federal Constitution asserts that the United
States Congress shall not pass any law that prohibits the
exercise of freedom of speech, of the press or the right to
peacefully assemble and petition the government to address

their grievances. The first amendment establishes six important
rights to the Americans citizens. These include the right to free
exercise of religion, the right to be free from interference from
the government with respect to religion, the freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government to
address people’s grievances.
As well In Tinker, public high school children wore
black armbands on their arms to protest the Vietnam War. It
was a symbolic silent protest and no substantial disturbances
occurred. Nevertheless, the students were suspended. Id. The
Supreme Court held that regarding school officers to rationalize
expurgating speech, they should be capable of exhibiting that
their deed was created due to something above than an exclusive
wish to stop the uneasiness and dreadfulness which is inevitably
there with an infamous opinion, that the behavior which would,
materially and significantly impede with the needs of an
adequate regulation/strictness in the running of the school.
Tinker, 393 U.S.at 509.
Similarly, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, where
a public high school student wore an offensive t-shirt that
criticized the president of the United States, it was not
substantially disruptive under the Tinker standard, and therefore
was not an offense for which a student can be suspended.
See,Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 620, 624 (2d Cir. 2004). The
Guiles court followed Tinker’s reasoning. Id. at 330.
APPLY:
Here, the School District may or may not have
properly suspended Sarah LeRoy. This is because there may or
may not have been a substantial disruption of the school’s
education activity. Under Tinker, one must balance the
restricted First Amendment rights of public high school students
against the school’s educational mission and a substantial
interference with it. SeeTinker, 393 U.S. at x. Here, LeRoy’s

T-shirt was disturbing, but did not by itself cause substantial
disruption, only harmless hallway encounters. However, the
students standing and cheering and booing in the assembly,
where she spoke in loud tones as she exposed her anti-war t-
shirt may be been either (1) a substantial disruption, and (2)
enough for school administrators to reasonably forecast such.
SeeTinker, 393 U.S. at x. And, although her speech was
symbolic and political, entitled to the highest forms of pure
speech according to tinker, tese factors may outweigh their
political significance. SeeTinker, 393 U.S. at x.
Similarly, the Second Circuit ruled in Guiles that a T-shirt may
not be substantially disruptive in and of itself so as to warrant
the sanction of suspension. SeeGuiles, xxx F.2d at xxx. Here,
LeRoy’s T-shirt is entitled to the same protection as the T-shirt
in Guiles. It was political, symbolic speech, and Guiles
followed Tinker’s reasoning in allowing free speech in schools
to a certain, reasonable extent. See Guiles, xxx F.2d at xxx.
However, the critical difference here, is that Sarah LeRoy
displayed her T-shirt while shouting anti-war slogans and riling
up a crowd of high school students. This essential difference
distinguishes Sarah’s case from Guiles as much as it does from
Tinker in that her suspension may well have been permissible
due to a reasonable forecast of disruption. SeeTinker, 393 U.S.
at xxx; Guiles, xxx F2d. at xxx.
Wearing another that is perceived controversial does not amount
to materially disruptive speech. See Tinker ,393 U.S. 503
(1969).
Tinkers wearing of armbands may not be confirmed by
sanction as a disruptive and disrespectful act despite the fact
that they violated school orders. Therefore, in this regard, the
school ought to appreciate the fact that it is not entitled to
immunity because Sarah LeRoy’s right to wear the controversial
T-shirt is clearly established under the first amendment and
therefore the school ought to have understood that its actions
were unconstitutional. By quoting, Guiles ex rel. Lucas v.
Martineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Vt. 2004) case, Sarah

LeRoy has reasonable grounds in the sense that the First
Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression. In
Guiles’ case, the Court of Appeal held that in as much as the T-
shirt depicted drugs and alcohol, it was still a protected speech
on the basis of the first amendment of the federal constitution.
Similarly, Sarah LeRoy has reasonable grounds because wearing
a controversial T-shirt and smearing artificial blood to the other
is protected speech and therefore the school’s action to suspend
her is unconstitutional and violates the provisions of the first
amendment. Furthermore, her actions do not amount to possible
materially disruptive speech since it is unclear whether or not
the public was disrupted by her actions.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is clear that act was sanctionable
by the law.
CONCLUSION:
It is evident that Sarah LeRoy has reasonable
claims against the school’s action to suspend her because doing
so violates the provisions of the first amendment which
guarantees the freedom of speech. Furthermore, the school’s
actions are unconstitutional because they work against the
provisions of the constitution.
Facts for Fall 2018 Appellate Brief Assignment –
Appeal of Motion for Summary Judgment
Background
The school board held a hearing and upheld Principal
Meaney’s decision to suspend Sarah and further refused to
expunge her record of that suspension. Sarah LeRoy exhausted
her administrative remedies and commenced an action in federal
court, seeking injunctive relief by way of expunging Sarah’s
suspension from her record; declaratory relief to the effect that
the school board acted unconstitutionally under color of state

law in regard to her suspension; and damages in the form of
out-of-pocket expenses for tuition for the private school where
she finished her high school degree, for the scholarship she lost
from Ivy University attributable to her suspension record; other
nominal or punitive damages; and attorney’s fees and costs.
Plaintiff Sarah LeRoy moved for summary judgment in the
case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56,
seeking a judgment from the Northern District of New York
(trial court) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial
court DENIED Plaintiff Sarah LeRoy’s motion for summary
judgment. Sarah LeRoy disagrees with the Court’s decision,
and so she has filed an appeal with the Second Circuit.
Assignment:
Write an appellate brief to the appellate court (Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit) convincing it why the law and facts
support your client’s point of view and relief sought (YOU ARE
COUNSEL FOR EITHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
SARAH).
Sarah LeRoy is the APPELLANT.
The School District is the APPELLEE.
Attached for your review is the text of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule
56 (see page 3). Furthermore, the parties have agreed to use a
stipulated record, attached beginning at page 4, as part of its
exhibits. DO NOT ATTACH ANY EXHIBITS TO YOUR
BRIEF.
The brief should follow standard format, including the
following sections:
Cover sheet (provided, including online)
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities
Question Presented
Facts

Argument (including point headings/sub-headings)
Conclusion
The brief should be in 12-point Times New Roman or Century
Schoolbook font, and shall be double (2.0) line spaced, and
shall not exceed 12 pages in length; however, the cover sheet,
table of contents, and table of authorities do NOT count towards
the 12-page limit.
The brief is due by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday.
Thank you.
Rule 56. Summary Judgment
(a) By a Claiming Party. A party claiming relief may move,
with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on
all or part of the claim. The motion may be filed at any time
after:
(1) 20 days have passed from commencement of the action; or
(2) the opposing party serves a motion for summary judgment.
(b) By a Defending Party. A party against whom relief is sought
may move at any time, with or without supporting affidavits, for
summary judgment on all or part of the claim.
(c) Serving the Motion; Proceedings. The motion must be served
at least 10 days before the day set for the hearing. An opposing
party may serve opposing affidavits before the hearing day. The
judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(d) Case Not Fully Adjudicated on the Motion.
(1) Establishing Facts. If summary judgment is not rendered on
the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable,
determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue. The

court should so determine by examining the pleadings and
evidence before it and by interrogating the attorneys. It should
then issue an order specifying what facts--including items of
damages or other relief--are not genuinely at issue. The facts so
specified must be treated as established in the action.
(2) Establishing Liability. An interlocutory summary judgment
may be rendered on liability alone, even if there is a genuine
issue on the amount of damages.
(e) Affidavits; Further Testimony.
(1) In General. A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made
on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on
the matters stated. If a paper or part of a paper is referred to in
an affidavit, a sworn or certified copy must be attached to or
served with the affidavit. The court may permit an affidavit to
be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to
interrogatories, or additional affidavits.
(2) Opposing Party's Obligation to Respond. When a motion for
summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing
party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own
pleading; rather, its response must--by affidavits or as
otherwise provided in this rule--set out specific facts showing a
genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so
respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered
against that party.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiff
vs.

The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
RECORD ON APPEAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
Plaintiff ORDER AND JUDGMENT
vs.

Defendants
___________________________________________
Upon the motion brought before the Court and upon the record
and further upon the memoranda of law presented to this court,
the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
opining that there are genuine issues of material fact as to
whether the School District properly suspended plaintiff for
behavior that was lewd, vulgar, or offensive or substantially
interfered with and/or disrupted the School District’s
educational mission. SeeTinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty.
Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
ENTER: _________________
________________________________________
James Johnson, U.S. District Court Judge
___________________________________________
Plaintiff Notice of Appeal
vs.

Defendants
___________________________________________
The Plaintiffs hereby appeal from the lower district court’s
judgment and order and each and every part thereof.
Dated: ____________
Hanson J. Hanson
Hanson J. Hanson, Esq.
Hanson & Hanson, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Six Hanover Towers
Syracuse, New York 13244
Tel. 315 555-1900
Fax: (315) 555-1977
To: Semansky and Semansky, LL.P.
Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse School District
Office and Post Office Address
Two Hanover Towers
Tel. (315) 555-1167
Fax: (315) 555-1668
___________________________________________

Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR
vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO RULE 56
Defendants
___________________________________________
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That Plaintiff will move this court
on November x, 2018 at 10:00 in the forenoon of that day for an
order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting the
following relief:
a. a judgment declaring Rule 220 of the Syracuse School
District unconstitutional on its face as overbroad and a violation
of plaintiff’s rights and the rights of those similarly situated as
granted to citizens of the United States under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
b. a judgment declaring the manner of enforcement and
application of Rule 220 of the Syracuse School District against
plaintiff Sarah LeRoy unconstitutional and a violation of civil
rights afforded to her under the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments
to the United States Constitution;
c. an order permanently enjoining Defendants from further

enforcement of Rule 220 of the Syracuse School District;
d. an order compelling Defendants to expunge plaintiff’s
disciplinary record of all punishments or sanctions imposed
against her pursuant to Defendants’ conduct;
e. an order setting this matter down for a trial on the issue of
damages.
f. an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs for this
action;
g. the granting of such further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
DATED: October --, 2018
Hanson J. Hanson
Hanson J. Hanson, Esq.
Hanson & Hanson, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Six Hanover Towers
Tel. 315 555-1900
Fax: (315) 555-1977
To: Semansky and Semansky, LL.P.
Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse School District
Office and Post Office Address
Two Hanover Towers
Tel. (315) 555-1167
Fax: (315) 555-1668

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT “A”
Plaintiff’s Complaint
[omitted]
EXHIBIT “B”
Defendants’ Answer
[omitted]
EXHIBIT “C”
Rule 220 – Syracuse School District
Rule 220.
(A) Prohibition. Students are prohibited from wearing any

clothing or other banners, buttons, clothing accessories, or any
other articles of clothing that contain words, acronyms, or
symbols that are obscene or that would substantially disrupt
legitimate school functions, nor may they wear any clothing.
Violation of this rule may result in discipline of the student(s)
who violate it. Sanctions may include but are not limited to
detention, suspension, or expulsion for school.
(B) Hearings and Procedure. Whenever a student is
sanctions under this rule, the student shall have an absolute
right to appeal the decision of the school officials who make the
preliminary determination as to its applicability and sanctions
that may have accompanied such a preliminary determination.
EXHIBIT “D”
STIPULATION OF FACTS
___________________________________________
Plaintiffs
STIPULATION OF FACTS
vs.
Defendants
___________________________________________

1. In May 2018, Sarah wore a t-shirt to a public high school in
the City of Syracuse, New York. The president of her class and
editor of the school newspaper, Sarah wore the t-shirt to express
her political views concerning the current involvement and
terrorist deaths of United States personnel in Afghanistan. She
had expressed her views in two school editorials weeks before.
2. The first editorial resulted in little more than some welcome
student debate in the hallway, and school officials did nothing
at the time. The second article prompted more reaction; some
student gave her the “high-five” in the hallways and expressed
strong agreement with her anti-U.S. involvement views with
noticeable enthusiasm. Other students jeered at her and called
her “unpatriotic” and a “traitor,” also in loud tones. A few
teachers witnessed this, as did Principal Meaney. Meaney
simply pulled Sarah aside and asked her to “tone it down in the
hallways and in future articles.”
3. The t-shirt Sarah wore on May 25th reiterated her strong
anti-involvement views, focused on the Afghanistan war, and
included a relief of a black map of Afghanistan on the front
with a red circle and slash (similar to a “No Parking” sign)
superimposed over it. The shirt also contained words. The
front read “Obama is a murderer! He is slaughtering your
brothers and sisters!” On the reverse side, it read “No more
immoral involvement in Afghanistan!” These appeared in large,
bold letters about up to four inches tall.
4. Although some students occasionally jeered at Sarah in the
hall or gave her a thumbs-up in response to her shirt, most did
nothing. One student threw a pen at her in class and called her
a traitor, but Sarah did not react, and her teacher simply told the
offending student to leave Sarah alone.
5. When Principal Meaney saw the shirt, he expressed concern
over the pen throwing incident, and asked Sarah to replace her

shirt with a t-shirt from her locker or to wear a jacket over it.
She complied, explaining that her brother had just been killed in
a terrorist attack on a military facility in Afghanistan, and
agreeing to put over the controversial shirt a white, long-
sleeved shirt.
6. Later that day, Sarah opened a school assembly on “current
events” by speaking critically about United States and coalition
involvement in Afghanistan. A total of 250 students attended,
as well as several faculty members and Principal Meaney.
Sarah spoke loudly and waved her hand in the air to emphasize
her points.
7. She then took out a container of red paint and smeared red
paint across the front of her white shirt. In response to the
controversial subject matter of her speech and her grotesque and
shocking act, students and faculty sat silent. They remained
silent for 30 seconds, and no disturbance was present.
8. Sarah then removed her white, stained shirt and displayed
her anti-United States involvement shirt she wore to school that
morning. The shirt, and all of its print and graphics, were
visible for all to see in the assembly. About 10 students rose
and booed her, waving their fists in the air. A few shouted
“traitor,” or “sit down and shut up!” or words to that effect. At
the same time, approximately 20 students stood up and
applauded.
9. The school had intended that the assembly should include a
student panel discussion on current events and expected that
students would discuss the war in Afghanistan as it appeared
regularly in news headlines. However, it feared that Sarah’s
expressions had generated unrest within the student body which
might get out of hand and result in fights, even though no such
disruptions actually occurred. The principal called Sarah into
his office and suspended her because of her conduct and manner

of dress and told her she could not return wearing her t-shirt or
any clothing with a similarly inappropriate messages, and that
she could not speak or write about such matters as she had in
the past.
10. Sarah returned to school the next day wearing the same t-
shirt, refused to change her shirt or remove it, and was
suspended. The school board, following proper procedures,
held a hearing and affirmed the principal’s decision. Sarah’s
parents threatened litigation and hired a lawyer. Two weeks of
negotiations to allow Sarah to return and have her record
expunged failed. With graduation approaching, neither side
gave in. Sarah did not graduate on time when ceremonies were
held in June 2018.
EXHIBIT “E”
Notice of Decision and Disposition,
Syracuse School District REVIEW PANEL
TO: Mr. and Mrs. Oscar LeRoy
123 State Street
Re: Sarah LeRoy, Syracuse High School
This panel held a hearing to determine the validity of the
Spring 2018 suspension imposed upon Sarah LeRoy, then a
senior attending Beatrice High School within the Syracuse
School District by that school's principal, George Meaney. This
panel also reviewed all documents and records related to this
case.

It is the decision of this panel that the suspension was
proper, and that the letter of suspension that was placed into
Sarah LeRoy's Beatrice High School academic transcript remain
permanent.
DATED: June 5, 2018
__Hela Hopper_____________________________
Hela Hopper
__ Guy Lombardo_____________________________
Guy Lombardo
___Graden Minskey____________________________
Graden Minskey
EXHIBIT “F”
Parson School
One Parson Place
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
August 25, 2018
Mr. and Mrs. Oscar LeRoy
123 State Street
Re: Sarah LeRoy
Dear Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy:
We write to you at the behest of both yourselves and your
attorney to outline our involvement with the education of your
daughter, Sarah LeRoy. We understand your circumstances and
we are happy to have issued a high school diploma after
accepting transfer credit of your daughter, Sarah LeRoy from

the Syracuse School District.
At your request, we state here for the record that the cost of
Sarah’s tuition for the additional courses required to complete
her education was $8,500.00, which has been paid in full by
you.
Thank you for sending Sarah to our school. It has been a
pleasure to have her here.
Sincerely,
Arthur H. White
Arthur White, Dean
AHW:cb
Ivy University
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Tel: (508) 555-8866
Fax: (508) 555-8867
OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS AND FINANCIAL AID
September 22, 2018
Ms. Sarah LeRoy
123 State Street
Re: Ivy University Dean’s Merit Scholarship
Dear Sarah:
We write to you at your request to confirm some of the

particulars of your situation here at Ivy University. First, our
registrar’s records show that you are a student in good standing
here at Ivy University, having matriculated during the beginning
of our fall 2018 semester. Second, your application for
admission was accepted in February 2018 and included a four-
year Ivy University Dean’s merit Scholarship of $25,000.00 per
academic year. Finally, for the record, our rules prohibit the
issuance of a scholarship to students who have a suspension or
other record of discipline on their high school transcripts and
that, regrettably, we were unable to honor our original
scholarship commitment to you.
If you have any additional questions, please let us know.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Hudson Karnaby
Laura Hudson Karnaby
Associate Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid
LHK: db
1 | Page
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROY
QUESTION PRESENTED
Should this reverse the lower court’s denial of summary

judgment to a public high school student who suffered monetary
loss as a result of being suspended from a public high school for
exercising her First Amendment rights in wearing a anti-war t-
shirt and smearing artificial blood on a white shirt during a
school sponsored assembly on current events, where students
had no reaction to the blood smearing whatsoever, and less than
10% of the present students booed or cheered when she
displayed her anti-war shirt?
FACTS
Sarah LeRoy, a former Syracuse public high school
student, was suspended during spring 2015 and had to attend
and pay for private schooling as a result of her suspension for
exercising her First Amendment rights by her wearing an anti-
war t-shirt in current events assembly at school to which less
than 10% of students even reacted, and to which none reacted to
her smearing of artificial blood on a white shirt. Twenty
students of 250 stood up and cheered and booed; some told her
to sit down and shut up. R.19.
Less than 10% of the students present at this school-sponsored
current events assembly stood up and booed or cheered,
although some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
While Ms. LeRoy smeared artificial blood on her shirt during
the current events assembly, there was no reaction from the
crowd, who sat silent. Even when she displayed her anti-war t-
shirt, less than 10% of the students present booed, and many of
these cheered her on, yet there was no violence or greater
disturbance than this. R.6.

[INSERT ALL RELEVANT FACTS HERE with citations to
stip.…]

On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. leRoy’s motion
ARGUMENT
MS. LEROY PROPERLY EXERCISED HER FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS
IN HER ACTIONS BEFORE THE STUDENT ASSMEBLY ON
CURRENT EVENTS AND THE DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY
SUSPENDED HER
TS Sarah LeRoy is entitled to a reversal of the lower court’s
denial of summary judgment summary judgment against the
defendant in her First Amendment claim.GEN The U. S.
courts grant summary judgment where, as here, a case presents
no genuine issues of fact that require resolution at trial, and
where the court can resolve the case as a matter of law in favor
of the moving party. FRCP Rule 56 (b);Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986).
The First Amendment of the constitution, through its

for injunctive relief, such as the instant case
FACTORS: While public high school students’ free speech
rights are not co-extensive with the general public’s, courts
Further, only sanctionably , lewd or vulgar, inappropriate
expressions of speech may be sanctioned. Bethel Sch. Dist. No.
403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
APPLY: Here, [apply quickly the legal ideas to our facts—
very short!!]
CONCLUSION: Therefore, this court should reverse the lower
court’s denial of her motion for grant summary judgment in her
claim of violation of her First Amendment rights against
defendants.
A. Ms. LeRoy’s application of red paint to her shirt was
symbolic speech to which there was no crowd reaction, no harm,
and as such this was a protected manifestation of her First
Amendment rights.
TS Sarah’s smearing of artificial blood on her shirt is a form of
political speech that caused no reaction from the assembly
crown and is therefore protected speech under the constitution
and not sanctionable. It was neither vulgar not an offensive act,
and it was not necessarily disruptive as no student reaction

occurred as a result.
GEN While a public school may sanction student activity that
is lewd, vulgar, obscene or otherwise unreasonably offensive,
this is only where, not as here, the students are of such an age
and maturity that it would be offensive to them. Bethel, 478
U.S. at 685; J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 2013 WL 4479229
at *8 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013).
FACTORS: Lewd, vulgar speech may be manifested through
symbolic or pure speech. Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. In addition,
the court has to balance the political nature of some allegedly
lewd or vulgar speech against its educational or political value.
Id.
ILLUS: For example, while one court saw fit to uphold a
spoken word and gestures, no court has held that the smearing
of artificial blood to a mature high-school audience with no
reaction has is sanctionable. See Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685. Also,
while sexually offensive phrases on clothing, such as “I Love
Boobies” is also sanctionable, and Finally, vulgar or
inappropriate speech on t-shirts, such as two sailors kissing
with the caption “Read My Lips,” “Coed Naked” t-shirts,
“Marijuana—Legalize It!,” “Don’t Be A Dick!,” and “Coed
Naked Gerbils” is also sanctionable, again, political speech has
yet to be so sanctioned in our case law. SeeJ.A., 2013 WL
4479229 at *8. Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F. Supp.
157 (D.Mass.1994).
861 F. Supp. at 167. These protections are even greater when
considering political speech instead of their sexual and
otherwise inappropriate subject matter.

APPLY Here, Sarah's t-shirts blood smearing is not properly
sanctionable. It was symbolic political speech at a school
sponsored event that might be entitled to protection under
Tinker
and Hazelwood, it was not sufficiently vulgar to be like the
“boobies” clothing or some of the vulgar and offensive
expressions in Pyle. See J.A., 2013 WL 4479229 at *8; Pyle,
861 F. Supp. at 167.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Ms. LeRoy’s act of smearing
artificial blood on her shirt in a current events assembly to no
crowd reaction of mature high schoolers was not properly
sanctioned.
B. Ms. Leroy’s Display Of Her Antiwar T-Shirt In An
Assembly Was Pure And Symbolic Speech And, Despite A
Reaction Of Less Than 10% Of Those Present And No Violence
Erupting, The School Improperly Suspended Her For Exercising
Protected Speech Under The First Amendment.
TS
GEN
FACTORS
ILLUS

APPLY
CONCLUSION
Therefore, this court should reverse the lower court’s
denial of Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment to Mr.
LeRoy against the defendants.
The names of the issues you should use
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503
(1969).
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). [not on point, but

contains excellent discussion of all relevant law and cases….]
Guiles ex rel. Lucas v. Marineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Vt.
2004). [t-shirt case]

SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx

Similar to SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx (17)

More from rtodd599

More from rtodd599 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx