Connection lost
Server error
BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A high school student was suspended for giving a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The Supreme Court held that the school’s disciplinary action did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights, distinguishing lewd speech from the political speech protected in Tinker.
Legal Significance: This case established that public schools may prohibit student speech that is vulgar, lewd, or indecent, even if it does not cause a substantial disruption. It created a new category of regulable student speech distinct from the political speech addressed in Tinker v. Des Moines.
BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
At a mandatory high school assembly, student Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a classmate for student office. The speech employed an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Prior to the assembly, two teachers advised Fraser that the speech was inappropriate and could result in severe consequences. During the speech, some students reacted with hooting and yelling, while others appeared bewildered and embarrassed. The school had a disciplinary rule prohibiting “obscene” language. The day after the speech, the school suspended Fraser for three days and removed his name from the list of candidates for graduation speaker, finding his speech violated the rule. Fraser sued, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Fraser, holding that the school failed to show the speech was disruptive under the standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prevent a public school district from disciplining a student for delivering a lewd and indecent speech at a school-sponsored assembly?
No. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the school Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prevent a public school district from disciplining a student for delivering a lewd and indecent speech at a school-sponsored assembly?
Conclusion
This decision carves out a significant exception to the *Tinker* standard, granting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Rule
The First Amendment does not prevent school officials from prohibiting and sanctioning Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Analysis
The Court distinguished this case from *Tinker v. Des Moines*, noting the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Schools can prohibit and punish student speech that is lewd, vulgar,
