case brief

Identification of the Case

Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., 593 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.2010).

Date decided: Under the authority of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania, the case was decided on June 13, 2011.

Issue: a). Was the student’s actions punishable?

b). Should the student have been suspended and not allowed to participate in the

graduation exercise?

Holding: a). The court held that under the circumstances in the case, there is a

constitutional prohibition in the first amendment that prevents schools from reaching beyond the

boundaries of the schoolyard to impose discipline (Baxter, 2014). This discipline was also

termed as inappropriate.

b). While the initial decision to forbid the boy from attending his graduation was

revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional and required a

compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015). On appeal in 2010, the appeal court

upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

and decided on June 13, 2011.

Background and Facts of the Case

Background: The case concerns Justine Layshocks parents against Hickory High School

who had suspended him for creating an online parody against the principal which in turn made

him miss his graduation.

Facts: The student’s actions took place off campus and during non-school hours. The

picture used was from the school’s website which is a public website in which everyone has

access.

Issues: The serious issue arising from the case is the fact that however distasteful his

actions, the student had not committed any offenses outlined by the school district which would

in turn cause a suspension. Also, due to the suspension, the student was kept from participating

in a momentous milestone in his life.

Decision of the high court/Reason for the decision: While the initial decision to forbid

the boy from attending his graduation was revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension

was unconstitutional and required a compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015).

On appeal in 2010, the appeal court upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the

US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and decided on June 13, 2011.

Opinion: The upholding of the student's freedom of speech by all the courts support the rights of expression. It shows the ability of the constitution to promote the ability of students to freely communicate their views without the fear of intimidation (Mercier, 2015). The majority of the people felt that the case was adequately taken and the judges effectively protected the rights of students.

The decision by the court was in line with that given in a similar case in which a student had ill-talked of their principle on MySpace. With the full circuit of appellate judges deciding to uphold the student’s rights, this shows a direct approval of the 1st amendment (Mercier, 2015). On the other hand, the decision may warrant similar behavior by students who may take their scores on the internet taking into account immunity provided by the constitution.

References

Baxter, L. C. (2014). The Unrealistic Geographic Limitations of the Supreme Court's School-Speech Precedents: Tinker in the Internet Age.  Mont. L. Rev.,  75, 103.

Conn, K. (2015). From Student Armbands to Cyberbullying: The First Amendment in Public Schools. In  Legal Frontiers in Education: Complex Law Issues for Leaders, Policymakers and Policy Implementers (pp. 35-58). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Mercier, L. (2015). History 1 March 23, 2015.