Question

Can someone explain the case of hazelwood and how it effects majority and minority opinion... I'll give medals and stuff

Answer 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 13, 1987
Decided January 13, 1988


Full case name
Hazelwood School District, et al. v. Kuhlmeier, et al.

Docket nos.
86-836

Citations
484 U.S. 260 (more)
108 S. Ct. 562; 98 L. Ed. 2d 592; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 310; 56 U.S.L.W. 4079; 14 Media L. Rep. 2081


Prior history
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Argument
Oral argument

Holding

The Court held that speech that can be reasonably viewed to have the school's imprimatur can be regulated by the school if the school has a legitimate pedagogical concern in regulating the speech.

Court membership



Chief Justice
William Rehnquist



Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy



Case opinions


Majority
White, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia

Dissent
Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.

The case was found in favor of Hazelwood School District, overruling a Court of Appeals reversal of a District Court ruling. There were five votes for Hazelwood, and three against. The majority of the justices believed that the censorship did not violate the student's First