Heidi Blum, a student at Aloha High School attended a community health fair held in city park in May of last year. Heidi Blum attended the fair with her family which included her mother, father, and younger brother. Aloha High School held a school-sponsored booth at the fair. An Aloha High School student who was also attending the fair took a photograph of Heidi Blum holding a sign which read, “Be compassionate, legalize marijuana for medical purpose.” The picture of Heidi Blum holding the sign was then published in the school newspaper. The principal of Aloha High School, Walter Hall, suspended Heidi from school for ten days due to a school policy that allows the suspension of students who “use, advocate or promote the use of any illegal drugs at a school function.” Heidi and her parents appealed the suspension to the Hula Bay School District. The Hula Bay School District upheld the suspension. Heidi Blum is claiming she has suffered ridicule and harassment by faculty and students which has caused her great emotional damage. The suspension has also affected her grades and may jeopardize her college choices. Heidi filed a lawsuit in the federal district court claiming a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Issue:
Under 42 U.S.C §1983, does a civil rights violation occur when Heidi Blum wields her banner at a community health fair, and if so, whether the school district may be held liable for damages?
Analysis:
Heidi Blum, a high school student was suspended after wielding a sign which read, “Be compassionate, legalize marijuana for medical purpose.” Blum was suspended by the principal of Aloha High School. Blum is filing suit under 42 U.S.C §1983 and looking to recover damages resulting from her suspension. Morse v. Frederick and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District are cases that contain similar key facts and similar case law. The legal question raised by these cases is whether the student’s civil rights were violated by the schools and if so, can the students recover damages.
Rule Explanation –In Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) Frederick was suspended for wielding a 14- foot banner that stated: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event. The high school principle, Deborah Morse, saw Frederick with other students wielding the banner. Morse directed Frederick and the other students to take down the banner. Frederick refused to take down the banner as directed by Morse. Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days. Morse believed the banner encouraged illegal drug use which is in violation of school policy. Frederick appealed his suspension to the Juneau School Board. The suspension was upheld by the Juneau District Superintendent. Frederick filed suit under 42 U.S.C §1983, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated by both the school board and Morse. The District Court then granted summary judgment for the school board and Morse. The Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s decision. Morse appealed to the U.S Supreme Court who granted writ of certiorari. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case.
Rule Analysis – Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) have very similar facts and similar law. Frederick was suspended for wielding a banner at a school-sanctioned event, that encouraged illegal drug use which is in violation of school policy. Blum was suspended for wielding a banner that encouraged illegal drug use at a community fair, in which the school had a school-sponsored booth, and Blum was suspended for violating school policy. Both Frederick and Blum filed suit under 42 U.S.C §1983 alleging that the school boards violated their civil rights. In Morse v. Frederick, the court found that the banner held by Frederick did promote illegal drug use and therefore Morse had a reasonable conclusion that the banner violated the school policy. Frederick wielded the banner at a school-sponsored and school-sanctioned event. Blum held a similar sign, one that encouraged illegal drug use, at a community health fair where her school held a school-sponsored booth.
Rule Explanation – In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) John F. Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands in their schools to publicize their objections towards Vietnam. They were sent home and suspended because they violated a school policy that made it a spendable offense for any student to wear an armband to school, and if asked to remove the armband and the student refused, they would be suspended until the student returned to school without the armband. The policy was implemented after the principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of a group of students that planned to wear the armbands as a form of protest towards hostilities in Vietnam. The fathers of Tinker and Eckhardt filed a complaint in the United States District Court under 42 U.S.C §1983.
Rule Analysis –In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and in this case, the petitioners filed suit under 42 U.S.C §1983. Both cases raise questions with regards of whether the principals and the school districts violated the civil rights of the students. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court found that the school did violate the student’s rights. The student’s expression did not disrupt the work and discipline of the school and therefore the school officials were wrong in suppressing the student’s expression of wearing black armbands. This form of free speech is acceptable in a school environment.
Conclusion:
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Morse v. Frederick serve precedent to Heidi Blum’s case. The cases have similar key facts and the same case law is in question. Morse v. Frederick has the most similarities and can be used as precedence in foreseeing the outcome of this case.