Protecting a Federal Right to Educational Equality and Adequacy

2019 ◽  
pp. 303-326
Author(s):  
Joshua E. Weishart
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
School Funding ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Educational Equality ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Equal Citizenship

In this chapter, Joshua E. Weishart notes that courts have resolved lawsuits invoking state constitutional rights in ways that have subdued the tension between two principles of justice: equality and liberty. The equality versus adequacy debate in school funding challenges at first stoked that tension until court decisions gradually demonstrated their potential interrelation. State constitutions, however, do not fix standards for the mutual enforcement of educational equality and adequacy, and thus, courts have struggled with remedies that serve both aims. Weishart contends that reconciliation ultimately must come through reconceptualizing children’s equality and liberty interests as an integral demand for equal liberty, one that treats differently situated children according to their needs so as to cultivate positive freedoms for equal citizenship. A federal right to education can elucidate this demand and facilitate its enforcement, aligning with the newly professed synergy between equal protection and substantive due process.

The Judicialization of American Education

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.C. Blokhuis ◽  
Randall Curren
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Due Process ◽  
School Funding ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Education ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Era ◽  
School Officials

Judicialization is the term most commonly used to describe the supervening authority of the courts in virtually every sphere of public life in liberal democratic states. In the United States, where judicialization is most advanced, political and administrative decisions by agencies and officials at every level of government are subject to constitutional scrutiny, and thus to the oversight and substituted decision-making authority of unelected members of the federal judiciary. The judicialization of American education is associated with the judicial review of administrative decisions by public school officials in lawsuits filed in the federal courts by or on behalf of students alleging due process and other Constitutional rights violations. So defined, the judicialization of American education has been facilitated by a number of legal and social developments in the Civil Rights Era, including the ascription of limited Constitutional rights to minors in public schools, the expansion of government agency liability, and the ensuing proliferation of lawsuits under Section 1983. Judicialization has been criticized for subjecting routine administrative decisions to complex and costly procedural regimentation, for distorting social relations by subjecting them to legal oversight, and for flooding the courts with frivolous lawsuits. The causes and outcomes of the judicialization of American education present a complex and mixed picture, however. The U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity’s Legal Services Program has played a central role in judicialization by providing legal resources to confront racial injustice in the punishment of students and in school funding.

Part II Rights Guarantees under State Constitutions: the New Judicial Federalism, 6 Methodology in State Constitutional Rights Interpretation

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Williams Robert F
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Court ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
14Th Amendment

This chapter discusses methodology problems arising in cases where similar federal and state constitutional rights claims are raised. Most federal constitutional rights have been incorporated into the federal Constitution's 14th Amendment so as to be applicable to the states. United States Supreme Court interpretations of federal constitutional rights are not binding on state court interpretation of identical or similar state constitutional rights, but state court divergence under these circumstances can raise questions about its legitimacy. A number of questions arise in this context, including for example the proper sequence of arguments, which constitution's rights guarantees should be argued first by counsel, and analyzed first by the state court. The most substantial methodology issue is whether state courts should develop criteria to guide them in deciding whether to interpret identical or similar state constitutional rights to be more protective than the federal analog. The criteria approach is analyzed in some depth, utilizing examples of the use of this methodology in a number of states. The chapter criticizes the use of the criteria approach based on a number of factors that make state court enforcement of state constitutional rights different from the United States Supreme Court's enforcement of the federal bill of rights. The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of federal constitutional rights guarantees is therefore not presumptively correct for the interpretation of state constitutions. The chapter also discusses briefly several other methodological problems, including the direct right of action for money damages under state constitutions, state action, and substantive due process and economic regulation.

The Public Employment Relationship and the Supreme Court in the 1980S

1988 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Rosenbloom
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Public Employment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

During the 1980s, Supreme Court decisions on the public employment relationship tended to constitutionalize public personnel administration further and to promote adjudicatory processes within it. The Court has been highly divided on issues involving the public employment relationship and, for the most part, has not developed broad general doctrines that comprehensively define the scope of public employees' constitutional rights. Rather, it has opted frequently for balancing approaches that promote a case-by-case jurisprudence that may fail to afford public personnelists adequate guidance. This article reviews Supreme Court decisions in the areas of public employees' substantive constitutional rights, their constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection, and their qualified immunity/liability for breaches of others' constitutional and/or federally protected statutory civil rights.

Workers’ Rights

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Zackin
Keyword(s):  
Labor Movement ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Negative Rights ◽  
Labor Leaders ◽  
Louis Hartz

This chapter examines the campaigns to add labor rights to state constitutions. The quintessential arguments about America's exceptional liberalism and its uniquely negative-rights culture have focused on the labor movement, which Louis Hartz has argued was a participant in—rather than a rival of—the dominant economic and ideological regime. The chapter first considers the labor provisions of state constitutions before discussing the ways that labor leaders and organizations influenced the drafting of new constitutions and amendments to existing constitutions. It then explains how labor rights were created not only to overturn particular court decisions, but also to preempt possible litigation. It also shows how labor organizations used constitutional rights to dictate state legislatures what they had to do while simultaneously telling courts what they could not do. The chapter demonstrates that, even in the area of labor regulation, Americans have successfully pursued the creation of positive rights.

Implying a Federal Constitutional Right to Education

2019 ◽  
pp. 135-163
Author(s):  
Derek W. Black
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
Constitutional Right

In this chapter, Derek W. Black surveys the various litigation, judicial, and scholarly theories through which courts might recognize a right to education under the United States Constitution. He begins by sorting those theories into their major doctrinal categories and subcategories and explaining their basic arguments, including substantive due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, citizenship, and originalism. Black then critically evaluates those theories, examining both the positives and negatives of the leading theories. He concludes that while a number of theories are plausible, scholarly theories have tended toward originalism in recent years and are the most likely to be successful before the courts.

Part II Rights Guarantees under State Constitutions: the New Judicial Federalism, 5 The New Judicial Federalism

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Williams Robert F
Keyword(s):  
Review Literature ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Judicial Federalism ◽  
Judicial Interpretations

This chapter discusses the evolution of the New Judicial Federalism, reflecting the realization that state constitutional rights provisions can provide, or be interpreted to provide, more rights than the federal Constitution's national minimum standards. It describes the wide variety of state constitutional rights provisions, together with the various stages of the New Judicial Federalism beginning in the 1970s. These developments consisted of state high court decisions, law review literature, including influential articles written by state judges as well as Justice William Brennan, Jr., and conferences. Also, the chapter describes the backlash against the New Judicial Federalism and the awareness that expansive judicial interpretations of state constitutions could be overturned by amendments to the texts of state constitutions. The chapter concludes with the suggestion that a true dialogue between state and federal courts concerning constitutional rights might be possible.

Constitutional Limitations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Reproductive Rights ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Health It ◽  
State Action ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
State Action Doctrine ◽  
Due Process Rights

This chapter describes “due process,” a Constitutional restriction on governmental actions that impact individuals, in the context of public health. It outlines the doctrines of procedural and substantive due process, including the legal tests that courts apply to decide whether individuals’ due process rights have been violated. It uses examples from Supreme Court cases that have defined due process in the context of public health, including those that struggle to define the scope of reproductive rights. It also examines two cases where public health principles were raised as a justification for governmental action: one about involuntary sterilization and one about Ebola. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the “state action doctrine” that defines which public health actors may be challenged on due process grounds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document