Respondent students then brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U. The judgment is affirmed.
You can help by adding to it. Justices Powell and O'Connor each filed an additional dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Burger's dissent[ edit ] Writing about the plurality opinion, Burger states, "Were this to become the law, this Court would come perilously close to becoming a 'super censor" of school board library decisions.
Under his view, "[n]o such right Presumably all activity within a primary or secondary school involves the conveyance of information and at least an implied approval of the worth of that information. How are "fundamental values" to be inculcated except by having school boards make content-based decisions about the appropriateness of retaining materials in the school library and curriculum.
In order to fulfill its function, an elected school board must express its views on the subjects which are taught to its students. In doing so those elected officials express the views of their community; they may err, of course, and the voters may remove them.
It is a startling erosion of the very idea of democratic government to have this Court arrogate to itself the power the plurality asserts today.
He states, [i]t does not follow that the decision to remove a book is less 'official suppression' than the decision not to acquire a book desired by someone.
He states, "I entirely disagree with Justice Brennan's treatment of the constitutional issue, I also disagree with his opinion for the entirely separate reason that it is not remotely tailored to the facts presented in this case.
With these differentiated roles of government in mind, it is helpful to assess the role of government as educator as compared with the role of government as sovereign. When it acts as an educator Obviously, there are innumerable decisions to be made as to what courses should be taught, what books should be purchased, or what teachers should be employed.
In the very course of administering the many-faceted operations of a school district, the mere decision to purchase some books will necessarily preclude the possibility of purchasing others.
In each of these instances, however, the book or the exposure to the subject matter may be acquired elsewhere. The managers of the school district are not proscribing it as to the citizenry in general, but are simply determining that it will not be included in the curriculum or school library.
Justice O'Connor's dissent[ edit ] In a very short dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor finds that the school board takes on a special role as educator. Educational decisions such as suitable material are properly relegated to the elected members of the school board.Board of Education v.
Pico, U.S. (),  was a case in which the United States Supreme Court split on the First Amendment issue of a local school boards removing library books from junior high schools and high schools.
The Respondents, Pico and other students at the high school and junior high school (Respondents), brought action in the District Court, seeking injunctive relief from the pulling of .
Federal district court decided that segregation in public education was harmful to black children, but because all-black schools and all-white schools had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teachers, the segregation was legal. Island Trees School District v. Pico () Summary In the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v.
Pico (), the Court held that the First Amendment limits the power of junior high and high school officials to remove books from school libraries because of their content. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v.
Pico () The Facts. At a conference sponsored by Parents of New York United (PONYU) in September , three members of the Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No.
26, in New York received lists of books that PONYU considered "objectionable.". As a result, in , Board of Education v. Pico ( U.S.
) reached the Supreme Court. This paper closely examines Pico and other related court cases and investigates principles of the First Amendment with regard to students and their right to intellectual freedom.