3

The case
One whether the slate secondary school violated the first amendment by suspending the
appellant for selling “vegan sucks” pins after school off campus
2 Whether the Slayer Secondary School violated the appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process rights to notice and evidence of the charges
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
Fourth amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Election activity rules
● Discussing the election or the candidates in school

● Posting about the election or the candidate’s
● Bringing any election-related items to school, including, but not limited to, posters, signs,
etc
Pro appellant First amendment
● the appellant did not sell or bring the pins to school; she talked and conversed about the
election outside of school
● She sold them at the ALDC market outside of the official school grounds
First Amendment pro appellant arguments

1. The student didn’t sell pins on school grounds, somewhat near the school but outside
official grounds and jurisdiction.
2. The pins didn’t relate to the election (though she did think they were going to harm
Evelyn's election run and support Dillions' campaign). Even if this is true, it didn’t violate
the election rules, as they refer to in school, not outside of school.
3. The student brought the pins into school but only sold them outside of school, and there
is no credible evidence that it was related to the campaign.
4. Even if it was, and we take Sonya’s statement about thinking the pins would harm
Evelyn's campaign, the level of suspicion she raises isn’t enough to justify a suspension.
The belief that something could potentially harm someone's campaign isn’t strong
enough to base a legal argument on.
5. The statement sonya provided can’t be used to prove whether it was election-related as
it is hearsay, it wasn;t added into evidence in the court procedure.
Fourteenth amendment pro Sonya argument

1. Sonya was suspended immediately for 8 days after arriving at the office the ms.
lukasiak the teacher who caught her selling pins
2. Sonya was given no chance to argue or repeal the dissection; instead, Tiffany
had to ask for a meeting with Ms. Lukasiak.
3. Tonya was only given 10 minutes to talk with her, clearly not enough time to
discuss everything that occurred
4. Ms. lusasiak said she was suspended for events happening at the ALDC and that
students could be suspended for events that happen “before, during, or after
school hours” despite it not being stated in the direct election law the school had
5. Tiffany scheduled a meeting with Dr. Hatter, the principal; however, Ms. Lasninka
stated, “They barely had time to talk and that the principal was busy with
something on the computer.”
6. Dr. hatcher said she could suspend tonya for something that happened after
school because of the election law, however, the election law didn’t explicitly
state that students couldn’t post about the election after school, and they didn’t
explain that the pins could have something to do with the election
7. Tiffany appealed the decision Dr. hatcher made to the board, however, the board
only deliberated for 20 minutes before making a decision.
8. Tiffany and Sonya didn’t receive Ms. hoylands statement about the ADLC
incident during the time of the hearing
9. MS. Ogbedide gave them only 10 minutes to discuss the situation, tiffany took 8
and Sonya only had 2.
10.The board only deliberated for 6 minutes before a decision
11.The complaint Sonya and Tiffany brought stated that Slater violated sonya; 's
14th Amendment by failing to provide evidence about the charges to them, this is
supported as they didn’t receive the statement about the ALDC incident at the
time of the hearing.
12.Tiffany asked for proof of sonya violating the election law, but Dr. Hatcher, Ms,
lusasiak, tiffany and Sonya disputed whether she was provided an answer
13.Ms. hoyland wasn’t present; even though she was the one who caught sonya and
could provide actual evidence
14.Ms. lusasiak was only given Ms. hoylands version of the story when she made
the decision to send her to the dean where she was than notified that she was
suspended
Structuring your arguments

1.Use strong and affirmative language when presenting your
arguments (Ex. This lawsuit by the appellants is a baseless
attempt by a bully who wishes to get away scout free from the
consequences) Note that the language I used had moral
implications; your language should hook the listeners and have
an affirmative implication
2. Keep the argument concise, using long and overly explanatory
language when discussing the facts of the case can lose the attention
of the jury and audience. Your first paragraph should include a
explanation of the facts and be concise. (Ex. This lawsuit is a
phony attempt by Slater and the appllees to silence freedom of
speech for all students. The school is clearly guilty of violating both
tinker and improperly citing mahoney. The school failed to give a
proper oral or written note to Tiffany or Sonya. The premises that the
school had to suspend Sonya was already faulty, as the school
cannot regulate freedom of speech of a student outside of school as
ruled by the court in mahoney V Bl. Don’t let the legal trickery that the
applees will use to confuse you and distract you from why this case
started. This case started because Sonya wanted to make extra cash
and sell pins, pins that where being sold outside of school grounds.
She was than apporched by a teacher and sent to the deans office
only to be suspended for trying to make money based on the
baseless idea that it was election related.) This is a example of
sumarrizing the facts and reminding the jury or judge about the facts
of the matter while keeping it concise and simple”
implementing official supreme court citations for your argument

Good morning, honorable justices! May it please the court
Your honors, may I begin?
My name is Daniel Fries, and I represent the petitioner, Sonya Morris. I am
addressing the 14th issue as to whether Slater Secondary School violated
Ms. Morrsis's 14th Amendment right to a fair trial
My name is Daniel Fries, and I represent the petitioner, Sonya Morris. I am

addressing the 14th issue of whether Slater Secondary School violated Ms.
Morris's First Amendment freedom of speech right.
The record states that Ms. Sonya was suspended for selling pins saying
that “vegan sucks” at the ALDC market. The school suspended her based
on the election laws they instated to prevent bullying and other disruptions
due to or relating to the election.
It is clear to notice two distinct facts that the slater representatives will
make: 1st, that the pins were related to the election, and 2nd, that they
were sold on school grounds. Both of these statements are entirely false.
Ms. Sonya sold the pins at the ALDC market; though the market did have
teachers present, it isn’t considered a part of the school. The market isn’t a
part of the school, so the school couldn’t say that the statements would
cause a school disruption at the time. The respondent will also attempt to
say that the pins were related to the election. However, there is no
reasonable proof to establish this as a fact or even enough to disperse
reasonable doubt. Sonya stated that she “ that the pins were meant to
support dillions campaign secretly”. This statement, first of all, is hearsay;
the statement was added to evidence and can’t be provided as proof of a
connection to the election law. But assuming this statement isn’t hearsay, it
can’t be used to prove it relates to the election as it occurs outside of
school. The Supreme Court ruling in Mahoney v. Bl protects students'
freedom of speech outside school. This case even protects crass and
crude language so long as there isn’t a reasonable disruption; this includes
inside the school, as ruled in Tinker.
Tinker established the idea of causing significant disruption. The pin
stating that “vegans suck” can’t be used by the school as a justification by
stating potential harm as the pins were too broad and couldn’t be tied back
to any particular candidate besides one. Making any broad statement could
affect any students who could be candidates. I could make a statement
saying that short people suck; this statement could potentially not be
election-related but can still refer to someone running for election. The
broadness of the statement in the pins can't reasonably justify the
statement that it was meant to target Evelyn. The school attempted to
suspend Sonya to curb students' free speech rights under the guise of a
reasonable fear for students' safety. It is straightforward to state that
Sonya’s statement, though even if considered directed towards vegans,
would be protected under Mahoney. The language occurred outside of
school, as the sister code of conduct discussing “outside election forms”
could be considered a violation of the First Amendment, which would
directly limit students' freedom of speech outside the school body.
I implore the court to overturn the previous court’s decision, as it is clear

that Slater violated Ms. Sonya’s First Amendment rights.

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The case

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

Election activity rules

● Discussing the election or the candidates in school

Pro appellant First amendment

First Amendment pro appellant arguments

Fourteenth amendment pro Sonya argument

Structuring your arguments

implementing official supreme court citations for your argument

My name is Daniel Fries, and I represent the petitioner, Sonya Morris. I am

I implore the court to overturn the previous court’s decision, as it is clear

You might also like

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The case

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

Election activity rules

●​ Discussing the election or the candidates in school

Pro appellant First amendment

First Amendment pro appellant arguments

Fourteenth amendment pro Sonya argument

Structuring your arguments

implementing official supreme court citations for your argument

My name is Daniel Fries, and I represent the petitioner, Sonya Morris. I am

I implore the court to overturn the previous court’s decision, as it is clear

You might also like

● Discussing the election or the candidates in school