-
McCollum v. Board of Education
The Council of Religion in Illinois recieved permision from the local school board to provide free religious education. Parents had the choice if they wanted to have their child to take this class. Vashti McCollum, parent of a student, sued the school, for establishing or giving favour to certain religions. Also was against paying taxes to support these classes. Illinois Supreme Court stated this violated the first admendment. But the US Supreme Court said church and school must be seprerate. -
Zorach vs Clauson
The New York law permitted schools to allow some students to leave during the day for purposes of religious instruction, but required some to stay in school. There were some parents that were not happy about this so they took it up to the Supreme Court. The final rulling stated that this did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the religious instruction did not take place in the school building. -
Epperson v. Arkansas
This case focused on how Arkansas state wouldn't let the evolution theory be taught in their curiculam. Later the administrators adopted a text book that had a chapter on the Charlies Darwin theory. Susan Epperson believed that it wasn't fair that they couldn't teach that. The school dismissed her from her job. So she took it up to the Chancery Court stated that it violated the fourteenth admendment. -
Lynch v. Donnelly
Pawtucket, Rhode Island's shopping center display consisted of a crèche, a Christianity display. The Paintiffs brought this to the DIstrict Court of Rhode Island. Arguing that it was favoring Chiristainity over others. They concluded that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first admendmant. The city petitioned to the US Supreme Court, they agreed with the previous decision. -
Wallace v. Jaffree
Alabama passed a law stating that teachers had to give the students, one minute daily so that they could have a moment for "meditation" or volentary prayer. Ishmael Jaffree, parent of three students, believed that this was inaproperate. He took this to the District Court of Alabama. They allowed the practice. Then it was taken up to the Supreme Court and decided that it violated the consitution. -
Bethel School District vs Fraiser
Matthew Fraiser gave a speech at an assembly, with approximly 600 students. The speech consitsted of repeated graphic, sexual, explicit metaphors. In result to this, the school suspended him and baned him from speaking at graduation. He sued the school for violating his freedom of speech. In result it ended with the Washington Court District concluding the school district violated the 1st ademendment. The school requested for it to be reviewed in the Supreme Court. -
Texas v. Johnson
In 1984, Gregory Johnson burned an American Flag in front of the Dallas City Hall. This was an act of protest against the Reagan Administrative Policies. After this he was sentenced to a year of prison and a 2,000$ fine. This then went to the Supreme Court. They decided that this act was protected under the 1st admendment. -
Lee v. Weisman
In Rhode Island, public schools were allowed to include clergy members in graduation cerimonies. Daniel Weisman, parent of a student, thought that it was inaproperate to have religion and prayer sessions during school events. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that this violated the establishment clause. -
Morse v. Frederick
Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, held a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school supervised event. School principle asked for him to put it away, he rufused. She took the banner and suspended him for 10 days becuase it was promoting illigal drug activities. The first trial said this was unconstitutional, second trial reversed it, then the Supreme Court stated that the 1st Admendment does not prevent school administraiters preventing inaporperate activity. -
U.S. v. Alvarez
Xavier Alvarez, a membor of the Three Valleys Water District Board of Directors. He was invited to a meeting to speak about his background. Alvarez talked about how he was a marine and recieved a medal of honor. But all this information was false. He was never in the US Armed Force. Alverez charged the Cenral District of California stating that they violated his 1st admendment right. They rejected his apeal, and the same with the Supreme Court, because he was giving false information.
