Legal History Analysis

Choose one of the topics below. Look up each case on Google and read about it. In the chart indicate
the name of the case in the first column. In the second column, list the facts, legal question,
arguments for each side, and court decision. Do this for each of the five cases for your selected topic.

School Attendance:
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Murphy v. State of Arkansas, 852 F.2d 1039 (1988)
In re Interest of Rebekah T., 654 N.W.2d 244 (2002)

Curriculum:
State ex rel. Andrews v. Webber, 108 Ind. 31 (1886)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359 (1969)
Debra P. v. Turlington, 564 F.Supp. 177 (1984)
Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (1996)

Rights of Students with Disabilities:

Board of Ed. Of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 488 US 176 (1982)
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
Foley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 153 F.3d 863 (1998)
Beth v. VanClay, 282 F.3d 493 (2002)

De-segregation of Public Schools:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007)

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Chandler v. McMinnville School District, 978 F.2d 524 (1992)
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F.Supp.2d 1175 (1998)
Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, 306 F.3d 616 (2002)
Wisniewski v. Board of Education of Weedsport, 494 F.3d. 24 (2007)
Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007)

Search and Seizure

Cornfield v. Consolidated H.S. District No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (1993)
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Board of Ed. Of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
State of Iowa v. Jones, 666 N.W.2d 142 (2003)
Doe v. Little Rock School District, 380 F.3d 349 (2004)
 Name: Terry Vechinski __________________________________________________
Topic: School Attendance ______________________________________________

Pierce v. Society of the After WWI many states decided to use public schools as a way of
Sisters promoting a common American culture.
Did parents have another option for school attendance, or were they
being forced to send their children to a public school?
In 1922 voters in Oregon passed an initiative amending the
Compulsory Education Act in an effort to try to eliminate Parochial,
specifically Catholic Schools, as an option for families.
This concerned parents and impacted their First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
The case eventually went before the Supreme Court in 1925. It was
decided that parents had the right to send their children to schools
other than public schools based on their liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment. *Interesting note-The Chief Justice was
past President William Taft. The only person in history to have held
both positions.
Wisconsin v. Yoder Amish families sends their children to school until the end of the
eighth grade only. Three Amish families attended New Glarus High
School and stopped after eighth grade. One of the families was the
Yoder family.
Wisconsins Compulsory Attendance Law states that children must
attend school until the age of 16.
Did this law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Amish families?
In 1972 the US Supreme Court sided with the Amish families stating
the compulsory attendance law violated their rights based on the
First Amendment and the Fourteenth as it applied to the state of
Wisconsin.

Plyler v. Doe In 1975 Texas legislature ruled that the states public schools should
deny enrollment to students who were foreign born and had not
been legally admitted to the country.
Could public schools deny an education to immigrants?
Could immigrants be forced to pay tuition if they do not have
documentation?
The Supreme Court decided in 1982 that states cannot deny a free
public education to children on account of their immigration status
based upon the Equal Protection Law under the Fourteenth
Amendment. It was concluded that excluding any group from
getting an education would do more harm than good.

Murphy v. State of The Murphys were homeschooling their children in the state of
Arkansas Arkansas.
 The state requires testing for homeschooled students similar to that
of private and public schools. However, if the homeschooled
student does not reach a certain level of achievement based on the
test scores, it is required that they be placed in a public, private, or
parochial school.
Do the Murphy children have to attend school in a traditional school
setting?
The Murphys challenged this requirement stating that it violated
their right to free exercise of religion, the right of due process of
law, the right of equal protection of the laws, and the right of
privacy and parental liberty.
In Federal District Court the judgement went to the state siting that
the government has a compelling interest in educating all of its
citizens.

In re Interest of Rebekah August of 2001 the attorneys office filed a petition on behalf of five
T. children alleging that their parents had neglected or refused to
provide an education for them.
Previously the family had filed exemptions with the court based on
religious reasons, but for 3 subsequent years those forms were not
filed.
Are the Murphy children being properly educated?
After interviews and reviews of records it was determined that the
educational needs of the children were not being met.