Running head: CASE OUTCOMES 1

Case Studies

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation
 CASE OUTCOMES 2

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

I, (your name), write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v.

Kuhlmeier.

In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, the students were operating in an environment bound by school

regulations. One of the essential functions of instructors in a school is to guide students such that their work

reflects the curriculum needs. The school principal edited the papers written by the students to ensure the

information complied with the school’s objectives. The paper was not targeted to a general audience but rather a

specific portion of the population. Therefore, the school was within constitutional mandates by editing the

student’s papers.

I tend to favor the loose construction of the laws applicable in the case. This implies that the arms of the

government have broad powers to do what is necessary. In this case, loose interpretation allows the school to

limit some form of speech without infringing on the Constitutional rights of the students. The appellate court

employed the strict interpretation in ruling that the school violated the students’ constitutional rights.

The school’s argument influenced my decision as well as interpretations in this case. The school had

interests in maintaining order and discipline as well as protecting younger students. Therefore, it had to use the

means available to control the information dominated by the school paper.

T.M. v. State of Florida

I, (your name), write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.

T.M. got into trouble for committing a crime. T.M. had been granted permission by his parents to go out

after the curfew. Although the curfew had intentions of improving the welfare of the citizens, it placed

excessive limitations on the liberties of minors.

 CASE OUTCOMES 3

I favor the loose interpretation of the curfew law. T.M. was convicted of violating a law limiting

movement after certain times. However. T.M did not commit any other crime. T.M. had the express permission

of his parents, who knew what he was going to do. Given they were responsible and they knew he would not

harm himself or others, the loose interpretation is essential in ruling in favor of T.M.

The curfew law impaired a fundamental right, which has its source in the federal constitution. In this

case, the curfew law could not withstand the scrutiny that it was necessary to promote a compelling

governmental interest. It was also not appropriately tailored to advance that interest.