Legal writing

DRAFT1.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.

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. See Tinker 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. See J.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. See Bethel, 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 applicability to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, 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. See Tinker 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).

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.