Case briefs should be one page in length (single spaced), use 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins, and list citations (follow sample example attached)
and references in APA format.
Plaintiff v. Defendant, Volume Source Page (Court Date)
(e.g., Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 148 N.H. 407 (2002))
Body (one paragraph for each element):
Facts: Outline the pertinent facts in the case, highlighting those with bearing on the court’s final decision.
Issues: Present the specific legal question(s) before the court. If the court raised/addressed multiple issues, address each separately.
Your issues should be concisely stated in question form and specific, not generalizations.
Holding (Decision): Outline the final decision of the court in this case. Answer the questions that you stated in the issues section.
Rationale: Your brief should conclude with a summary of the explanation by the court of its findings. Why did the court answer the
legal question in the manner that it did?
Additional Questions/Discussion: In addition, write a summary comparing and contrasting the two cases.
Adrian Bentley JR
Case Brief Comparison
Case Citation: Vernonia School District 47J v. Action 515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Facts: In the Vernonia School District there have been a rise in drug use among their students. The wrestling and football coaches noticed their athletes were suffering injuries due to the use of drugs and that number was climbing up. The Vernonia School District decided it would be best for the district to create a class for speakers could into the class to talk about the side effect of using drugs and what it can do to your everyday life. Using police drug dogs to find drugs in the school was another tactic the school district tried to use to keep drugs out of the school. Students were drug tested before the season started and all throughout the season. This happen because the parents gave consent for the school to drug tests their kids. The school would select random kids to take a drug test every week. The kids have the option to be drug tested every week or go to counseling if they failed a drug test. The student James Action signed up to play football for the district and was not allowed to play because his parents did not sign the consent form to allow the school to drug tests him. Action felt that they had violated his Fourth Amendment right and was seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the policy.
Issues: The issue was did Vernonia School District violate Action Fourth Amendment right?
Holding: Both Trial Court and Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Vernonia School District. The Appellate Court ruled in favor of Action. The decision was vacated and remanded in favor of the school district.
Rationale: This case showed that the student athletes are a reflection of the school and the school doesn’t like looking bad. The student athletes don’t have as much privacy as they thought. Student athletes are the face of the school and are held to a higher standard. Once the drugs started affecting the athletes the school knew they had to stop the drug problem quick. Drug use is taking very serious in the school and which why they enforce the drug screening process for the school. Once you decided to play a sport in the district then you have to give up some of your rights.
Case Citation: University of Colorado v. Derdeyn 832 P.2d 1031 (1991)
Facts: The student athletes filed a class action suit against the University of Colorado regarding to the constitutionality of a drug-testing program. The trial court orders for the drug testing to be discontinue. The Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court saying it was unconstitutional. “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized” is the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled it unconstitutional because there were no probable causes to implement the drug-testing program. The school argued that the students gave consent. The students felt like they had no choice but to do so because they would be denied their athletic eligibility or governmental benefits. The court agreed that the university pressured the student athletes.
Issue: The issue was did the University of Colorado violate the Fourth Amendment Right by implementing their drug-testing program.
Holding: The court ruled in favor of Derdeyn. Derdeyn was the spokesperson for all athletes at the university. The school would need probable cause to implement their drug-testing program and that is the reason why the court ruled it unconstitutional and it violated their Fourth Amendment Right.
Rationale: The university can conduct the drug-testing program only if they have probable cause or suspicion. The schools pressure the student’s athletes to give consent to an unlawful drug- testing program because they feared of losing benefits. This is the reason why the court ruled in favor of the student athletes. Compare and Contrast: Both cases had to do with school implementing drug-testing program for their athletes. The plaintiffs in both cases felt like their Fourth Amendment Right was being violated. In one case the student athletes gave consent because they felt like the school and the other case the plaintiff didn’t give consent and wasn’t allowed to play football until he gave consent were pressuring them. Vernonia School District had probable cause to put their drug-testing program in affect because many athletes were getting injured due to the fact of drug use. In their case they were justified in the reason why they implemented their drug program. In the case of the University of Colorado v. Derdeyn the university did not have probable cause to implement their drug-testing program and that is why the court ruled in favor of the student athletes. School had no reports of drugs being use by the student’s athletes.