3 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know

When it comes to our nation’s existing laws, who has the most influence? It’s not the president or even Congress—it’s the U.S. Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court. Its nine members, called justices, have the final say on whether laws and government regulations are constitutional—meaning permitted under the U.S. Constitution. If the Court determines that a law is unconstitutional, it must be changed or repealed. 

The Court is asked to hear approximately 8,000 cases each term—which lasts from October to June—but accepts only about 80. The justices take on cases that will affect people nationwide, not just those involved in the case. Justices listen to arguments from lawyers on both sides of the issue, then make their ruling. The decisions the Court makes have a lasting impact on the nation’s laws and the lives of Americans.

When it comes to our nation’s existing laws, who has the most influence? It is not the president or even Congress. It is the U.S. Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court. Its nine members are called justices. They have the final say on whether laws and government regulations are constitutional. This means allowed under the U.S. Constitution. If the Court determines that a law is unconstitutional, that law must be changed or repealed.

The Court’s term lasts from October to June. The Court is asked to hear about 8,000 cases each term, but it accepts only about 80. The justices take on cases that will affect people nationwide, not just those involved in the case. Justices listen to arguments from lawyers on both sides of the issue. Then they make their ruling. The decisions the Court makes have a lasting impact on the nation’s laws and the lives of Americans.

Justices are nominated by the president and must be approved by the Senate. What’s more, justices can serve for life, and where they stand on issues can affect the country for generations.

And here’s something else to know about the Court: Its decisions apply to more than just adults. Over the years, the justices have had plenty to say about legal issues that specifically affect kids—from free speech rights at school to whether students can lead school-wide prayers before football games. Read on to learn about three important Supreme Court cases that continue to shape your rights today.

Justices are nominated by the president and must be approved by the Senate. What is more, justices can serve for life, and their position on issues can affect the country for generations.

And here is something else to know about the Court: Its decisions apply to more than just adults. Over the years, the justices have had plenty to say about legal issues that specifically affect kids. These include issues like free speech rights at school and whether students can lead school-wide prayers before football games. Read on to learn about three important Supreme Court cases that continue to shape your rights today.

In 1965, America was in the middle of fighting in the Vietnam War (1954-1975). Every night, images of the bombings and injured soldiers and civilians were broadcast across the U.S. on the evening news. The footage shocked many Americans, including 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker.

As the death toll from the conflict rose, a growing antiwar movement—led mostly by young people—began to take hold nationwide. Tinker wanted to get involved in the effort. 

That December, she, along with her brother and several other students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest the war. Some of the students, including Tinker, were singled out for punishment and were suspended. School district officials said the teens were disrupting their classes.

In 1965, America was in the middle of fighting in the Vietnam War (1954-1975). Every night, images of the bombings and injured soldiers and civilians were broadcast across the U.S. on the evening news. The footage shocked many Americans, including 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker.

As the death toll from the conflict rose, a growing antiwar movement began to take hold nationwide. It was led mostly by young people. Tinker wanted to get involved in the effort.

That December, she, along with her brother and several other students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest the war. Tinker and some other students were singled out for punishment and were suspended. School district officials said the teens were disrupting their classes.

Tinker and the other protesters believed that being suspended violated their First Amendment right to free speech, so they—along with their parents—sued the school district. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.

In a landmark decision, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the teens. The justices said students and teachers don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 

The Court did not, however, grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school’s need to keep order. As long as an act of expression doesn’t cause a “substantial disruption” or invade the rights of others, it’s allowed.  

For example, lower courts have since relied on the Tinker ruling to allow students to have nose rings and dyed hair but not to let them advocate for illegal drug use, because doing so might be disruptive.

Tinker and the other protesters believed that being suspended violated their First Amendment right to free speech. So they—along with their parents—sued the school district. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.

In a landmark decision, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the teens. The justices said students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

However, the Court did not grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school’s need to keep order. As long as an act of expression does not cause a “substantial disruption” or invade the rights of others, it is allowed.

For example, lower courts have since relied on the Tinker ruling to allow students to have nose rings and dyed hair but not to let them advocate for illegal drug use, because doing so might be disruptive.

For years, every home varsity football game at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, started with a Christian-based prayer. A student who had been elected by his or her fellow classmates would lead the prayer over the school’s public-address system.

But that tradition ended in 1995 after several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district. They claimed that the student’s broadcasted prayer before the games violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a national religion or from favoring one religion over other beliefs.

For years, every home varsity football game at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, started with a Christian-based prayer. A student who had been elected by his or her fellow classmates would lead the prayer over the school’s public-address system.

But that tradition ended in 1995 after several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district. They claimed that the student’s broadcasted prayer before the games violated the First Amendment. This amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion or from favoring one religion over other beliefs.

The case reached the Supreme Court in 2000. The justices agreed with the families that the school district’s policy regarding on-campus prayer was unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said that the prayer, although led by a student, was still a school-sponsored activity because it was supervised by school faculty. Any student who attended a football game, the justices said, was being forced to participate in a religious ceremony.

“The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals,” the Court said.

However, the justices also noted that “nothing in the Constitution . . . prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying” on school grounds.

Since the Santa Fe decision, several lower courts have maintained that student-initiated group prayer is protected by the First Amendment if it is not organized by the school. This is generally understood to mean that a group of student athletes can pray together before a game in the locker room or on the field, for example, as long as their coaches, teachers, or other school officials are not involved.

The case reached the Supreme Court in 2000. The justices agreed with the families that the school district’s policy regarding on-campus prayer was unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said that the prayer, although led by a student, was still a school-sponsored activity because it was supervised by school faculty. The justices said any student who attended a football game was being forced to participate in a religious ceremony.

“The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals,” the Court said.

The justices also noted that “nothing in the Constitution . . . prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying” on school grounds.

Since the Santa Fe decision, several lower courts have maintained that student-initiated group prayer is protected by the First Amendment if it is not organized by the school. This generally means that a group of student athletes can pray together before a game in the locker room or on the field as long as their coaches, teachers, or other school officials are not involved.

In 1998, 16-year-old Lindsay Earls was a model student. She was a member of the National Honor Society and in her school’s choir and marching band. But at Tecumseh High School in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, participation in extracurricular activities meant that she had to agree to be tested for illegal drug use.

Lindsay didn’t think that was fair, but she reluctantly agreed to be tested so she could continue taking part in school activities. (She passed.) Still, she and another student decided to sue the school district. They argued that its drug-testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” of Americans and their property.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court sided with the school district. It said that “a student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment, where the state is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.” Testing for illegal drugs using urine analysis, said the Court, is minimally invasive. Therefore, such tests are “a reasonable means of furthering the school district’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren.”

The ruling gives public schools broad powers to conduct random drug testing. It expands the Court’s decision on an earlier case from 1995 that allowed drug testing of only student athletes. 

Today, many middle and high schools across the U.S. have policies that allow school officials to conduct random drug testing of students.

In 1998, 16-year-old Lindsay Earls was a model student. She was a member of the National Honor Society and was in her school’s choir and marching band. But at Tecumseh High School in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, taking part in extracurricular activities meant that she had to agree to be tested for illegal drug use.

Lindsay did not think that was fair. She reluctantly agreed to be tested so she could continue taking part in school activities. (She passed.) Still, she and another student decided to sue the school district. They argued that its drug-testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment. That amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” of Americans and their property.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court sided with the school district. It said that “a student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment, where the state is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.” The court said that testing for illegal drugs using urine analysis is minimally invasive. Such tests, therefore, are “a reasonable means of furthering the school district’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren.”

The ruling gives public schools broad powers to conduct random drug testing. It expands the Court’s decision on an earlier case from 1995, which allowed drug testing of only student athletes.

Today, many middle and high schools across the U.S. have policies that allow school officials to conduct random drug testing of students.