Rehnquist, CJ., dissenting UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Student B v. Ed Rooney, Principal of Easton High School[April 24, 2014]CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. In favor of the principle, the latest decision in which the Court of Appeal found that in the 2007 case of Student B v Rooney the sighting of people wearing or uttering hate speech within the school would not be tolerated school and the suspension of Student B for wearing a hat that read “F all Muslims” assigned by Constitutional Principal Rooney. In the dissenting opinion, we believe the Supreme Court should maintain or affirm the decision in favor of the principal that the decision was constitutional. According to precedent, in the similar case Ray v. City of Paul Minnesota regarding free speech, a similar incident took place under the schoolyard concept and was also handled by school officials. A student and a pair of affiliated teenagers have been accused of creating an inappropriate cross, made by joining together the broken legs of a chair. The cross was then taken and burned at an African American family that lived across the street from the petitioner's home and yard. The decisions made in Ray v. City of Paul Minnesota are as follows: The appellant was charged under the St. Paul Bias – Motivated Crime Ordinance, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and the Supreme Court held this unconstitutional ordinance. For comparison, this relates to the Student B v Rooney case because the incident and the petitioner were out of school when it occurred. However, the appellants were STUDENT B v. ROONEY Rehnquist CJ., dissenting for both juvenile offenders. The mental states of innocent people were affected and the expressions were aimed at...... middle of a paper...... stating that it violated the students' right to free speech, the suspension of the student B for wearing Principal Rooney's offensive cap based on my interpretation of the law and circumstances was constitutional. There are several reasons that led me to make this decision. For starters, even if the student never wore the hat onto school property, there has never been any definitive proof of where school property ends and where it actually begins. My next point is STUDENT B v. ROONEY Kagan J., disagreeing that Student B's display of the cap, to the point that it became a priority for the student to ensure that Student A saw him wearing it, was a clear form of hate speech, which is any offensive or threatening speech based on race, color, religion, or sexual orientation that may incite violence or other action against an individual or group (cite).