Legal writing

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

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.

[INSERT ALL RELEVANT FACTS HERE with citations to stip.…]

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. FRCP 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: Here, [apply quickly the legal ideas to our facts—very short!!]

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

GEN

FACTORS

ILLUS

APPLY

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.

The names of the issues you should use

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). [not on point, but contains excellent discussion of all relevant law and cases….]

Guiles ex rel. Lucas v. Marineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Vt. 2004). [t-shirt case]