BEFORE BEGINNING THIS ASSIGNMENT GO TO THE CANVAS MODULE "CASE BRIEF" FOR IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS, COMPLETE DIRECTIONS, AND GRADING CRITERIA. The case brief must be written to explain what is going on to a NON-lawyer. A NON-lawyer does not know particular cases and precedents. They would not know particular legal standards. A NON-lawyer needs to understand your case brief, and especially the issue and decision. Example Case Brief Students must use the exact format and headings Case name and year: Area of Law: U.S. Constitution---First Amendment---Freedom of Speech Facts: Relevant background information: Morse, the principal of a high school in Alaska, allowed the students to stand outside the school to watch as the Olympic torch was carried past the high school in 2002. At this school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, several students held up a banner containing the phrase, BONG HITS 4 JESUS. Morse, thinking the banner advocated illegal drug use, following school policy against messages that are pro-drug use, told the students to take the banner down. Frederick, one of the students with the banner, refused, and was subsequently suspended. The superintendent and the school board both supported the principals actions. Legal arguments made by the plaintiff(s): The student sued the school, arguing that the school violated the students First Amendment right to free speech. Legal arguments made by the defendant(s): The school argued that it was within their power to prevent the promotion of drug use and there was no violation of the First Amendment. Decisions made by lower courts: The District Court ruled in favor of the school, saying no First Amendment violation occurred. The student appealed and the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the activity was school-authorized and that the message was pro-marijuana use. However, the Ninth Circuit argued that the school did not demonstrate that the students speech threatened a substantial disruption, and thus his First Amendment right was violated. The school then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issue: Did the school officials actions requiring the student to take down the banner and then suspending the student for his refusal violate the students First Amendment right to free speech? Decision: No, the students First Amendment right to free speech was not violated. The Ninth Circuits opinion was reversed and remanded in favor of the school official. Three Reasons: Reason 1) The Supreme Court reasoned that the students speech is properly understood as school speech, as it was at a school-sanctioned event, during school hours, on and immediately off school property. As a school speech case, the school is allowed to limit speech in ways they could not were it not a school event, which limits the students speech rights preventing his unfurling of a banner supporting drug use in blatant violation of school policy. Reason 2) The pro-drug message was clear and no reasonable interpretation exists for what the banner meant other than to support illegal drug use. The pro-drug message, which was against school policy, was not required by Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, to involve a substantial disruption, as was argued in Bethel School Dist. No 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675. Reason 3) Furthermore, in accordance with the importance of preventing school aged children from engaging in illegal substance use, the school was well within its power to suspend the student for promoting drug use via his banner. The right to free speech is not lost when children enter school, but the nature of permissible speech, per the ruling in Fraser, changes