Barreras_Darly_PLA1104_writingassignment3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Hillsborough Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1003
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by darlybarreras305
To: Supervisory attorney
From: Paralegal
Re: Blum v. Hula Bay School District
Violation of Civil Rights. STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
I have been assigned the task of determining-within the meaning of civil action of deprivation of
rights-if Ms. Blum wearing a sign stating, “Be Compassionate, legalized marijuana for medicinal
purposes.” At a school function later, leading to a ten-day suspension was indeed in violation of
her civil rights. ISSUE
Under the civil action of deprivation of rights, 42 U.S.C. §1983, is there sufficient evidence to
support that her rights were violated when she was suspended for wearing a sign stating “Be
compassionate, legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes” while attending a school function?
BRIEF ANSWER
Qualified yes. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.,
The Supreme
Court reversed the two previous rulings dismissing the high school student complaint against the
school officials because the wearing of armbands was not classified as disruptive conduct. The
wearing of the arm bands was described as “closely akin to pure speech” which is ultimately
protected by the First Amendment. If the case is interpreted as freedom of speech and without
causing disruption, then her suspension is in violation of her civil rights. FACTS
In May of last year, Ms. Blum Attended a health and wellness fair being held in a public park.
Her school was offering extra credit to those students who attended. To receive that extra credit,
they must sign an attendance sheet that was in the school-sponsored booth. Ms. Blum was
attending the event with her family who support the use of medicinal marijuana. She was
wearing a sign that stated, “Be compassionate, legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.” When
a candid picture was taken of her later to be used in the school’s paper. Once principal Walter
Hall became aware of this picture he met with Ms. Blum and her parents and suspended her for
ten days. Claiming she was advocating and promoting the use of illegal drugs at school at a
school function which is against their policy. Ms. Blum and her parents attempted to appeal the
suspension but, the Hula Bay school district backed the decision of her suspension. Analysis
Ms. Blum was suspended because of a sign she wore in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 This statute
states:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…
The statute however does not define what would be the rule for a school function, even though it
is at a public park. Therefore, it is necessary to consult case law to determine how the courts
have defined the circumstances in cases where it is a school function. A case on point is Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L.
, 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021) In this case the
defendant had tried out for the school’s varsity cheerleading team and the softball team but
didn’t get either position she has tried out for. So in frustration, she uploaded pictures with her
middle finger also using vulgar language in the caption. Which led to her being suspended from
school. The school claims that they prohibit the use of vulgar language to criticize school teams.
The court ruled that because it was it was outside of school hours and away from the campus it
was protected under the First Amendment. In applying the Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L to our facts it appears that there is sufficient
evidence to support that her suspension violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 because she was not on school
grounds, the event was not a school event it was a health and wellness fair that was not
sponsored by the school in its totality, nor was it during school hours. A a possible counterargument, however, is that she was at the booth which was sponsored by her
school when the picture was taken, however it should not make it school property because the
booth is located at a public park and not on school property.
Conclusion
The Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, 42 U.S.C. §1983, established the protection of
freedom of speech under the First Amendment. In Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., she was not
on school property nor was it during school hours when she posted the vulgar snapchats. In our
case, Ms. Blum was in a public park and was also not during school hours. In light of, the
Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist.
Holding it appears that there is sufficient evidence to support the
violation of Ms. Blum’s civil action for deprivation of rights 42 U.S.C. §1983. Recommendations
Additional case law should be researched to determine if there are any cases holding of someone
who is also off school grounds and not during school hours yet goes against a school’s policy of
drug advocacy.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help