u/Character_Freedom160

Many teachers (and students and parents) rightfully complain that modern school administrators don't do enough to protect classrooms from the disruptions caused by students with behavioral problems. One reason is they are afraid of being sued by the parents of disruptive children.

The Masschusetts Appeals Court recently ruled in favor of a school in Doe v. Thorell, 276 NE 3d 210 - Mass: Appeals Court 2026 - Google Scholar

In the case, concerned parents sent a letter to the school principal and assistant principal, the school committee, and the superintendent, with copies to the teacher and certain other parents detailing that their child had "been exposed to obscene and profane language, bullying towards others, endangerment of property and other people, and most startling, racist remarks regarding his friend. Notably, these behaviors are exhibited across all school settings (e.g., classroom, hallway, gym, library, music, and the lunchroom)." The letter also detailed numerous instances in which the classroom had to be "evacuated" because of the disruptive child's violent behavior.

The teacher wrote parents indicating she was aware of the issue. The school administration took no substantive action in response to the letter. Nonetheless, the parents of the disruptive child sued, claiming that "the resulting emotional distress had left them 'no choice' but to withdraw their child from the school."

On this basis, they asserted claims of defamation, interference by threats, intimidation, and coercion with their child's right to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other statutes, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The school didn't suspend the child. Didn't expel the child. Didn't put the child in a different classroom. AND THEY STILL GOT SUED while the disruptive child and his parents get to maintain their anonymity.

Trump's executive order "directs federal agencies to deny U.S. citizenship, passports, Social Security numbers, and other federal benefits to children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident." 

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that Clause, states, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Imagining yourself as a Supreme Court justice, what would your opinion allowing the president's executive order to stand say?

Update: I was wrong. 6-3. I haven't read the 194 pages yet, but I assume the dissents are... something.

Law schools should use the LSAT in conjunction with other measures to determine admissibility. A minimum LSAT score should be required for entry into an ABA approved Law School. If you are unable to score a 150 on the LSAT, you should not be considered for admission. This will lead to closing many bad law schools. That's good. America has too many lawyers and law schools.

I started law school in 2003. This was before gay marriage was legalized nationwide. My first-year Con Law professor asked us about it. One student, from a rural area, asked "if men can marry women, can I marry my dog." I'm not making this up. This really happened. Are there conversations like this happening now?