In Search of Religious Liberty

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-120
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Dierenfield ◽  
David A. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Catholic School ◽  
Public School District ◽  
Civil Libertarian ◽  
Lemon Test ◽  
Essential Service ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses the origins of the Zobrests’ lawsuit against their public school district in Tucson, which refused on constitutional grounds to pay for Jim’s sign language interpreter in a Catholic school. For the Zobrests, federal disability laws and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause entitled Jim to have this essential service. What follows is an analysis of the zigzag line of thinking employed by the U.S. Supreme Court as it grappled with church-state issues in the twentieth century prior to its consideration of the Zobrest case. For years, two titans of constitutional law—Catholic neoconservative William Bentley Ball and civil libertarian Leo Pfeffer—battled over what was legally permissible with regard to freedom of religion. Ultimately, the court enunciated a controversial Lemon Test to address this thorny area of its jurisprudence.

Moving beyond Brown: Race and Education After Parents v. Seattle School District No. 1

2011 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamel K. Donnor
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students Of Color ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Community Schools ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Educational Advancement ◽  
Quality Learning ◽  
The U.S

Background By a 5–4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 declared that voluntary public school integration programs were unconstitutional. Citing the prospective harm that students and their families might incur from being denied admission to the high school of their choice, the Supreme Court declared that the plaintiffs, Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS), had a valid claim of injury by asserting a interest in not being forced to compete for seats at certain high schools in a system that uses race as a deciding factor in many of its admissions decisions. Purpose The goal of the article is to discuss how conceptions of harm and fairness as articulated in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 privilege the self-interests of White students and families over the educational needs of students of color. Research Design This article is a document analysis. Conclusions By referencing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision of 1954 (Brown I) to buttress its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that programmatic efforts to ensure students of color access to quality learning environments are inherently ominous. The dilemma moving forward for policy makers and scholars concerned with the educational advancement of students of color is not to develop new ways to integrate America's public schools or reconcile the gaps in the Supreme Court's logic, but rather to craft programs and policies for students of color around the human development and workforce needs of the global economy.

Signing, Sectarian Schools, and the Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-151
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Dierenfield ◽  
David A. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Federal District ◽  
Catholic School ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
District Court ◽  
Parochial School ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Government Aid ◽  
Sectarian Schools ◽  
Civil Libertarian ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines and analyzes the five-year journey of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) from the federal district court in Tucson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Bentley Ball, the Zobrests’ attorney, and John Richardson, the school district’s attorney, clashed over whether the Establishment Clause permitted any government aid to a Catholic school. Many religious and civil libertarian groups—but just one national deaf association—filed arguments to sway the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority decision favoring the Zobrests, misunderstood the complicated function of a sign language interpreter to permit what he regarded as incidental parochial school aid. Rehnquist maintained the aid was permissible because the plaintiffs and their deaf son were its main beneficiaries.

“The Dilemma to a Free People”: Justice Robert Jackson, Walter Bagehot, and the Creation of a Conservative Jurisprudence

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Free Speech Rights ◽  
Free People ◽  
The U.S

Even today, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) strikes students of constitutional law as a vexing factual situation. The problems the case posed for the High Court are all the more daunting considering its historical context, directly following the nation's confrontation with Nazism and standing on the cusp of the Cold War against Communism. In the broader view, most observers would locate the decision within the ascendance of liberal protection for free speech rights occurring over the second half of the twentieth century. But progressive accounts should not be allowed to mask the contemporary momentousness for the justices hearing the case. Indeed, in this constitutional conflict over the speech of a rabble-rousing priest was lodged a sober question about the polity's health at that time and the preferred response to the nation's need.

Centenary of HM Seervai – Doyen of Indian constitutional law – an Australian appreciation

Legal Studies ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-378
Author(s):  
Michael Kirby
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
High Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority

For much of the second half of the twentieth century, HM Seervai was a leading advocate of the Bombay High Court. He argued some of the most important constitutional cases decided by the Supreme Court of India and eventually resolved in 1970 to write his Constitutional Law of India. It became the leading text on Indian constitutional law. It is still in widespread use. Many instances of recent citations are quoted. But it is not the usual commentary on the text of the Indian constitutional and case law. Instead, the book contains a running discussion on the shifts in direction as well as sharp criticisms where Seervai felt that the courts had strayed from correct constitutional doctrine. Seervai died in 1996 as the fourth edition was just completed. In this paper, originally given as a lecture in Mumbai in 2007 on the centenary of Seervai’s birth, the author questions Seervai’s testamentary prohibition on posthumous editions of his text. He urges that a new edition should be produced to keep Seervai’s legacy alive not only in India but in other constitutional democracies where Indian judicial authority is increasingly cited.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. T. Prince ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document