The case involves balancing students’ First Amendment rights of free speech and expression against the school’s obligation to maintain an orderly learning environment at school. This case is here on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For our educational purposes today, we will read our decision at the end of the arguments. The petitioner will then have the opportunity for rebuttal. Then we will hear from the respondent, which is the school district. They are Christopher Eckhardt, John Tinker, and Mary Beth Tinker. We will start with the petitioners, they are the students who asked the Court for review. Here is the procedure we will follow today. Our job now is to review the record and make sure that everything was done properly, then we will make the final determination on what the Constitution says and means in this case. We have reviewed all of that in the court records. The students have now brought their case to the Supreme Court of the United States.īecause this is an appellate hearing, there is no witness testimony, and no evidence is presented. On appeal, a tie vote in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals meant that the trial court’s decision in favor of the school district would stand. This is a case that was decided by the trial court in favor of the school district. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES OPENS THE HEARING: Today, we will hear oral arguments in the case of Tinker v. The rest of the students are journalists who take notes and give a live television report summarizing the key points made by each side and announcing the decision.ĭebriefing: Read and Discuss the Majority and Dissenting Opinions (15 minutes) They are eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice two attorneys for the petitioner (student protesters) and two attorneys for the respondent (school district). There are speaking roles for 13 students. This activity can be conducted in a federal courtroom with a judge presiding, or in a classroom with the teacher presiding. To what extent should schools be able to restrict students’ freedom of expression on campus? They will assume the roles of attorneys and Supreme Court justices in a realistic simulation of oral arguments before the highest court in the land. In this simulation of a Supreme Court oral argument, students will gain insights into the key issues considered by the court in deciding Tinker v. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Proposed Changes to Code and JC&D RulesĪdapted from a script written by the law clerks of Judge David S.Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information.Privacy Policy for Electronic Case Files.Special Projects of the Rules Committees.Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments.Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages.Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms.Open Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee.How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal.How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms.Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees.Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment.Pending Changes in the Bankruptcy Forms.Long Range Plan for Information Technology.Judiciary Conferences That Cost More Than $100,000.Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts. Asset Management Planning Process Handbook.Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary.Electronic Public Access Public User Group.Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property.National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway.Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination.Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees.Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge.Roadways to the Bench: Who Me? A Bankruptcy or Magistrate Judge?.Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - District Courts.Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - Courts of Appeals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |