Chapter 7: The Story of Southeastern Community College v. Davis: The Prequel to the Television Series “ER” 69 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This is the story of how Frances Davis played a role in changing the culture of how people with disabilities are treated in society. It is the story of how people with disabilities in higher education were increasingly included as a result of her case. It is the story of how higher education disability discrimination standards play an important part in developing disability discrimination law generally. And finally, it is the story of how disability discrimination law changed the way society views individuals with disabilities.
- The open door and more positive attitudes about individuals with disabilities in higher education and society generally is exemplified by the television series , and the characters on that program. The beginning of this chapter listed several characters with disabilities with roles in a teaching hospital in Chicago. These include doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and medical students. Their stories really highlight the evolution of the law.
- The story here is about how individuals who today seek to enter into American society through colleges and universities are affected by these laws and Ms. Davis’s attempt to use them. While she lost the case, the decision set the stage for implementation of a nondiscrimination policy not only to higher education, but to other aspects of society. The decision affects individuals with conditions ranging from depression and drug addiction, to sensory impairments (such as hearing and vision), mobility impairments, and learning disabilities. And it affects areas of employment, K–12 education, public accommodations, public services, transportation, justice systems, housing, and health care.
- There is the story of how this case began setting the standard in higher education cases for what it means to be otherwise qualified for academic programs, particularly those that lead to professional certification, and even more particularly those involving health care professions.
- There is the story of how this case and other early higher education cases reached substantive issues and provided a valuable framework through those decisions for a much broader range of cases—employment, public accommodations, housing, and so on.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1: Education Law Stories: Law and Society in the Classroom 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- We have structured this book so that it may serve as a supplemental text for law school classes addressing issues involving K–12, higher education or both. Thus, cases from both levels of education are represented in our selections. The book is also designed to serve as a supplemental or a primary text outside the law school arena, such as colleges of education or schools of public policy. These stories may be helpful to today’s educators who must be able to identify those issues that could potentially develop into problems with major legal implications.
- In her telling of the story behind Professor Rachel Moran brings her longstanding expertise in education law and experience as the co-author of an education law casebook
- Court rejected the federal constitutional challenge to the manner in which Texas—and many states—fund public education, despite the resultant vast disparities between the amounts of funds available to rich and poor school districts. In all likelihood, has foreclosed the use of the federal constitution as a vehicle for affecting any dramatic change in the funding structure of public education by its holding that there was no fundamental right to a quality public education under the federal constitution and that poverty was not a suspect class. story unfolds in the federal court arena with a focus on the scope of federal constitutional rights, its legacy may well be the development of a greater reliance on state constitutional law, at least with regard to some civil rights issues in the education context.
- race discrimination in education, it left unanswered many other questions regarding educational opportunity. In looking at the story underlying the Supreme Court’s decision in Professor Michael Heise examines the twin issues of determining whether there is any federal constitutionally protected right to an education and whether there are any federal constitutional requirements regarding the sufficiency of the funding of such education. His scholarship often is empirical, especially with regard to school finance issues, and he brings this extensive knowledge of school finance to his storytelling.
- The Supreme Court continued to address issues involving disabilities in the education context this past term when it decided , the Court held that parents of children with disabilities have their own independent, enforceable rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and thus could represent themselves in court. Unlike , in that it recognizes the importance of federal statutory protection in the disabilities area. While we have chosen to tell the story of a nursing student who was singled out on the basis of her disability at the higher education level, the holding in
- Open Chapter
Education Law Stories 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Chapter 1: Education Law Stories: Law and Society in the Classroom
- EDUCATION LAW STORIES
- Chapter 2: The Story of Brown v. Board of Education: The Long Road to Racial Equality
- Chapter 3: The Story of San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez: School Finance, Local Control, and Constitutional Limits
- Chapter 4: The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger: Affirmative Action Wins
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Contributors 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- is the Robert D. and Leslie–Kay Raven Professor of Law at the University of California School of Law (Boalt Hall) and Director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of California at Berkeley. She is the co-author of the fourth edition of Educational Policy and the Law (with Mark G. Yudof, David L.Kirp, and Betsy Levin), co-editor of a forthcoming book on Race Law Stories (with Devon Carbado), and author of Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance. She has published numerous articles on educational equity, including
- , Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, specializes in empirical legal scholarship and bridging empirical methodologies, legal theory, and policy analysis. He writes in public and private law areas, including civil justice reform, punitive damages, education policy, criminal sentencing, and judicial decision-making. Professor Heise’s teaching areas include torts, empirical methods for lawyers, constitutional law, education law, and law and social science. His scholarly publications include numerous contributions to education law, with an emphasis on issues relating to school choice, desegregation, school finance, and equal educational opportunity. Professor Heise has co-edited the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies since 2005.
- , J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, teaches education law, children and the law, and contracts. She is the co-author of the casebook Children and the Law (2d ed. LexisNexis) (with Gardner) and has published extensively on education law and policy, including in the Journal of Education Finance (with Dayton); in the Vanderbilt Law Review (with Dayton);
- is the Kenneth Wang Professor of Law at St. John’s University School of Law. Previously, she served on the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Administration, Planning, and Social Policy Program and in the Institute for Educational Management. She is a former trustee of the State University of New York and former chair of the Education and the Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Section on Education Law of the Association of American Law Schools. She has held the Bretzfelder fellowship in Constitutional Law at Columbia University as well as a fellowship from the Open Society Institute. She is the author of Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single–Sex Schooling (Yale University Press); Visions of Schooling: Conscience, Community, and Common Education (Yale University Press); and Equal Education under Law: Legal Rights and Federal Policy in the Post–“Brown Era” (St. Martin’s Press). She is currently writing on a book on...
- is the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center and Director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at UH. From 1983–1987, he also chaired the UH graduate program in Higher Education. From 1990–95, he served as Associate Dean of the Law Center; he once again served in 2001–2004. He was named Bates Professor of Law in 1996, and Bates Distinguished Chair in 2002. In 2001, he was selected for the Esther Farfel Award, as the Outstanding Professor at the University of Houston. Before joining the faculty at the University of Houston in 1982, Professor Olivas held teaching and research positions at the Ohio State University and Howard University; he served as Director of Research for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in Washington, D.C. from 1979–1982. In 1989–90, he was a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin, and Special Counsel to then-Chancellor Donna Shalala. In 1997, he held the Mason...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4: The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger: Affirmative Action Wins 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Instead, the analysis really begins when Justice O’Connor offers a non-Equal Protection principle: “[t]he Law School’s educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its education mission is one to which we defer.” That declaration—the first sentence after the majority states its conclusion that diversity can be a compelling governmental interest—is a driving force in the majority’s analysis. This deference means the majority accepts the defendant’s story more than questions it, and effectively ensures its constitutionality.
- , the Supreme Court affirmed that diversity could be a legally legitimate rationale for affirmative action, and validated Michigan’s approach to deciding who is admitted to the law school. Michigan voters responded by passing their own version of Proposition 209. Here I tell the story of what ended up stopping CIR and how and why affirmative action survived as an option—at least for now. The story takes us not just to why Grutter never attended law school, but also to the students who benefitted from race-conscious admissions. On a larger scale, the story is one of diversity gathering public support, and the Supreme Court constitutionalizing that public acceptance and allowing voluntary integration. Yet, the story also raises the possibility that diversity’s survival will prove transitory.
- Five justices validated the law school’s practices to create diversity, and four strongly disapproved them. That outcome narrows diversity’s utility, as did the undergraduate case, which held the undergraduate point system unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and O’Connor, who had voted to uphold the law school’s practices, joined the six-to-three majority in still leaves, however, ample room for other educators to consider race in higher education and stay within constitutional boundaries.
- Barbara Grutter never attended law school. She has deemed and has continued to promote public discussion of affirmative action preferences as president of Toward A Fair Michigan (“TAFM”). Grutter describes TAFM as a “non-profit, non-partisan education organization, which, amongst other things, sponsors debates (providing both pro and con speakers) to promote an informed citizenry in support of the best public decision” on affirmative action preferences.
- Constitutional Criteria: The Social Science and Common Law of Admissions Decisions in Higher Education
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5: The Story of Lau v. Nichols: Breaking the Silence in Chinatown 106 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In fact, the experience in California suggests that declaring a fundamental right to education would not have accomplished dramatically more than Title VI, the OCR memorandum, and the EEOA have. The California Supreme Court did recognize a right to education. , as state policy shifted away from native-language instruction, advocates primarily turned to federal law, rather than the right to education under state law, to challenge the retrenchment. It is not clear that invoking a fundamental right could have succeeded in attacking changes in California’s bilingual education law. Courts still would have deferred to school officials in fashioning a remedy. Disagreements about the optimal method of instruction remain unresolved, and even today, the only consensus seems to be that a complete denial of assistance is inappropriate. Because no one has proposed total neglect, every reformer can at least plausibly claim to be promoting students’ interests and thus advancing their right to
- Steinman saw these facts as a way to make constitutional history. Although the complaint alleged that the San Francisco school district had violated federal and state law, both constitutional and statutory, the legal analysis emphasized that education was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
- On questions of law, the city conceded that the Chinese-speaking students had a right to education but denied that it was being violated. School officials were “employing all means available limited only by the availability of funds, buildings and qualified personnel to provide as fine an education as possible for all pupils of this School District.” According to the defendants, there was no denial of a public education because:
- In California, policymakers similarly retreated from their earlier commitment to native-language instruction. The 1980 Bilingual Education Improvement and Reform Act emphasized the central goal of learning English and increased state support for intensive English instruction. Then, in June 1987, the state’s bilingual education act lapsed under a sunset law. The governor vetoed a bill that would have renewed the act, and the legislature could not muster the votes to override his decision. As a result, California was left without any state statutory provisions for bilingual programs. To fill the gap, the California Department of Education adopted guidelines that preserved some preference for native-language instruction. The guidelines put the Department at loggerheads with its more conservative counterpart, the California Board of Education. The Board began to grant waivers to districts that did not wish to comply with the Department’s bilingual education requirements. Eventually,...
- The Center for Law and Education joined with two other amici to contend that minimum access to education was a fundamental right. The Center for Law and Education again offered expert evidence that “if a child cannot understand the language of instruction he is doomed to educational failure.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2: The Story of Brown v. Board of Education: The Long Road to Racial Equality 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See Segregation and the Equal Protection Clause: Brief of the Committee of Law Teachers Against Segregated Legal Education
- [s]egregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has a sanction of law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to restrain the education and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.
- The Court found “the fact remains that instruction in law for Negroes is not now afforded by the State, either at Lincoln University or elsewhere within the State.” Based on these findings, the Court reasoned that the critical issue was “the question [of] whether the provision for the legal education in other States of [negro] residents in Missouri is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of equal protection.”
- Houston’s memorandum presented two proposals. One was based on the premise that the entire effort would focus on education cases. The second budget proposed an equal division of the funds between education and transportation litigation. Houston believed that the education proposal should be given priority because of the potential benefits for African–American students while the campaign was still in progress. He recommended a two-pronged attack: one against unequal allocation of school funds and the other against differentials in teacher salaries. Houston explained his goals were: “(1) to arouse and strengthen the will of the local communities to demand and fight for their rights; (2) to work out model procedures through actual tests in court which can be used by
- had a personal significance. He was prevented from attending Maryland’s law school based on its policy of excluding African–Americans. Maryland’s law school was located in Baltimore where Thurgood Marshall resided. To obtain his legal education, Marshall had to rise in the early hours of each morning to travel from his home in Baltimore to attend classes at Howard University in Washington, D.C. He returned each day to his home in Baltimore, usually arriving late at night. Marshall endured this inconvenience for three years;
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3: The Story of San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez: School Finance, Local Control, and Constitutional Limits 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Two key themes emerge from the district court opinion that continue to resonate throughout many aspects of education law in general and school finance litigation in particular. First, the court opinion implicitly equated “higher quality education” with higher per pupil spending. Second, the opinion conveyed some trepidation owing to separation of powers concerns.
- In contrast to Justice White, Justice Marshall continued to argue that education was a fundamental right. Justice Marshall’s prior inability to persuade the Court to declare education as a fundamental right in (as an advocate for the plaintiffs) did not deter him from revisiting the issue now that he sat on the Court. After categorizing Court pronouncements of education’s importance, Justice Marshall developed the argument that education “directly affects” a child’s ability to enjoy other core rights clearly articulated by the Constitution and deemed fundamental by the Court, such as speech. Justice Marshall argued that the nexus between education and the engagement in the political process was sufficiently robust that, according to Marshall, the former was fundamental as a matter of constitutional law and, as such, triggered strict judicial scrutiny of Texas’ school finance system. Recognizing that some students in property-poor schools academically out performed their...
- Professor James Ryan, a leading education law scholar, teaches law at the University of Virginia.
- [E]ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
- Ironically, state efforts to develop and implement standards and assessment regimes better enabled the federal government to enter the education policymaking field with greater force which had the practical effect of further blurring federalism lines and diluting local control. Federal involvement with K–12 education policy increased in dramatic fashion with the No Child Left Behind Act 2001 In exchange for federal education dollars, districts and states must now submit to increasingly onerous federal education laws. One inevitable consequence of school reform initiatives at the state and federal levels (as well as increased state and federal education spending) has been a further dilution of local control over school policy.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8: The Story of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier: Student Press and the School Censor 47 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Student Press Law Center, Student Press Law Center, http://www.splc.org/legalresearch. The Center instructs students not to withhold well-written and accurate stories out of such fear, but rather to publish them and leave any possible censoring to the administration. It warns students, “If you head down the road of self-censorship, it will not be long until your publication is as superficial and unchallenging as many student publications were a generation ago. It is up to you not to let that happen.” The website also instructs students to talk to their principals and boards of education about adopting policies that define their newspapers as public forums and spells out the decision-making responsibilities that the students have regarding content of their publications.
- The Law of Torts
- The Law and Higher Education: Cases and Materials on Colleges in Court
- The defendant’s expert witness, Mr. Martin Duggan, a recent appointee to the Federal Commission on Compensation and former editorial page editor for the Saint Louis Globe Democrat, fared much better. He testified that “fairness and balance” is a term of art in journalism and requires journalists to present all sides of a story. He testified that the divorce story did not meet this standard and that both the divorce story and the pregnancy story were not suitable for publication because they were invasions of privacy. He also explained the difference between censorship and editing; censorship comes from an outside source, where editing is the prerogative of an authority within the publishing entity.
- , the school speech analysis has changed depending on the perspective of the analyst. Not surprisingly, four judges on the Seventh Circuit dissented from the opinion, taking an entirely different tack from that of Judge Easterbrook. The dissenters argued that there is a legal distinction between college students and high school students, and they focused on cases where courts have recognized that minors have a unique status under the law. Because high school students are less mature than college students and because the mission of the high school differs from the mission in higher education, there is no reason to apply beyond the high school context. As a general matter, college students are more mature, independent thinkers. Where K–12 education is concerned with the inculcation of values (citing
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11: The Story of Edwards v. Aguillard: The Genesis of Creation-Science 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- also raised particular questions about the application of the secular purpose test, namely whether judges should consider the statutory language only or if they appropriately focused on legislative history and the secular or religious commitments of individual legislators. Although such issues are significant for Establishment Clause jurisprudence, for the story of creation-science the recurring question is not about secular purpose, but on what is religious and what is scientific education.
- The biblical “story begins, audaciously, with the creation of the world,” of plants and animals, of all living creatures, and of man and woman. These stories recount that “God created humankind in his image, … male and female he created them,” While the Priestly author “presented a majestic God-centered scenario of creation,” the Yahwist “presents a very different but equally profound story of origins … centered more on human beings and familiar human experiences, and even its deity is conceived in more anthropomorphic terms.” The biblical text implies that creation occurred about 4000 B.C.E. The Genesis stories were influenced by other ancient epics of creation, including the Story of Atrahasis, from about 1700 B.C.E., the Enuma Elish, from 1125–1104 B.C.E., and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains stories that were current before 2000 B.C.E.
- So far the courts have rejected the argument that evolution is a religion, but that legal conclusion does not mark an end to my story. was only the beginning of a bigger book, offering a first chapter about creation-science. Chapter Two, about intelligent design, is still being written, and there may be future chapters on naturalism, ON or MN. After all, anyone who has read the Book of Genesis knows that creation(-science) is only the beginning of the story!
- The constitutional story of creation-science is much younger, dating to the United States Supreme Court’s 1987 decision, The story of creation-science arises from the conflict in American public schools between the Darwinian and the biblical accounts of origins. That story, which began with
- The Story Continues
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6: The Story of the Virginia Military Institute: Negotiating Sameness and Difference 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- is important for its immediate effect in allowing women access to a unique and valued education and for its sweeping rejection of gender stereotypes. Nonetheless, it is equally compelling for its underlying story, with its many twists and turns, of how history, politics, and cultural attitudes can affect the course of constitutional litigation and consequently public policy. It also underscores the role played by outside interests and the national and local media in shaping public opinion on conflicting narratives that at times mask deeper issues of broad social importance. In the end, this deceptively simple case of sex, schooling, and the military merits serious reflection as it continues to evolve against the enduring yet ever-changing debate over sameness and difference.
- The most compelling law stories begin with a named plaintiff, one who presents a portrait of heart-wrenching harm and unstoppable resilience in the face of institutional wrongdoing and resistance to change. The VMI case took a different route into court and so the story takes on a different, though nonetheless interesting, cast. Here the Justice Department in Washington set the legal machinery in motion based on a complaint filed in early1989 by a northern Virginia high school student.
- The VMI Board of Visitors passed a unanimous resolution stating that the policy was not in violation of the law, but rather provided “diversity and balance” in the Virginia system of higher education. That same day, in a preemptive strike and to the dismay of Justice attorneys, both the state Attorney General Mary Sue Terry and the VMI Foundation filed separate suits in the federal district court in Roanoke, where they were more certain to get a sympathetic hearing. They challenged what they considered federal encroachment on the state’s system of higher education and asked the court to declare the Institute’s admissions policy constitutional. The following month, the Civil Rights Division brought its own suit in the same court. The government argued that excluding women violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Like The Citadel, the way that VMI carries out this charge is through an “adversative” or doubting model of education. The purpose is to strip cadets of their individuality in a way that builds camaraderie and bonding. The key features are physical rigor, mental stress, absolute equality of treatment, total lack of privacy, minute regulation of behavior, and indoctrination in desirable values. ...or stalls. Students are assigned as many as five to a room whose doors have shadeless windows and whose sight line to the back must remain unobstructed. Rooms are spartan, lacking the televisions, telephones, carpets, wall decorations, and air conditioning now the norm in college dormitories. The Barracks is a four-story structure made up of two adjoining quadrangles; first year cadets live on the top floor. All rooms open onto porch-like structures or “stoops.” Outdoor staircases link each of the levels. While the college is in session, three cadet guards patrol the Barracks area round the...
- Over the past two centuries, the education of women has been subject to intermittent waves of resistance, ambivalence, and qualified support, each reflecting enduring disagreements over women’s place in society. Much of the dispute has focused on whether women and men are inherently the same or different. Remarks made several years ago by the now former President of Harvard University, suggesting by his “best guess” that “intrinsic aptitude” primarily accounts for the paucity of women holding senior academic positions in math and science, education is legendary. Going back to the 1870s, Dr. Edward Clarke, a member of Harvard’s Board of Overseers and a former member of Harvard’s medical faculty, warned with great certitude that secondary and higher education would harm women’s reproductive abilities. Clarke was especially averse to educating women in the masculine and academically challenging atmosphere of the coeducational school. His book,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13: The Story of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay Earls: Drug Testing in the Public Schools 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , the Court observed that the school authorities are state actors for other constitutional guarantees such as due process and First Amendment concerns. Further, schools are regulated by compulsory education laws requiring school officials to follow publicly mandated educational and discipline policies. So, in essence, they are acting as representatives of the state, not as parents.
- Linda M. Meoli, an attorney with The Education Law Center, Inc. in Oklahoma City, argued this case in the lower courts, and represented the school district at the Supreme Court. During her oral argument she maintained that the case was a minor logical extension of
- I wish to thank Jennifer Dolle and Hillary Massey, my research assistants, for their superb work. I also wish to thank Lindsay Earls for her cooperation in sharing her story with us.
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (noting in a corporal punishment case that the authority of teachers derives from a school’s need to maintain group discipline and provide a proper education, rather than deriving from parental delegation).
- , students she had never met approached her and asked her about the case. The school paper published stories about the case and Lindsay was asked to speak in numerous classes about her experiences.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10: The Story of Keyishian v. Board of Regents: Loyalty Oaths, Academic Freedom and Free Speech in the University Community 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal Constitution, the New York Regents have uniquely pervasive authority over all education in the state, not only the public sector but also every classroom in the private sector from a parochial kindergarten to a Columbia or Cornell doctoral seminar. Such education comprised, quite simply, the “University of the State of New York”—an entity not to be confused with others. The Regents’ authority over private education exists not only on paper, but in practice, as the removal of several doctoral programs at Fordham and St. Johns Universities will attest, and as New York’s highest court has several timed affirmed. but any discussion of matters beyond higher education would be superfluous here).
- Several months later, while preparing to assume my post as Executive Assistant to President Martin Meyerson in Buffalo, I received a thick envelope of employment papers from the SUNY personnel office in Albany. Upon opening the envelope, I noted at once that the Feinberg Law apparatus lay atop the pile. The text of the law, and the ominous warnings to new employees of the State of New York, were unmistakable. I telephoned the appropriate person in Albany, explaining that I had just played a role in persuading the Supreme Court to invalidate the Feinberg Law. After checking with a superior, an obviously embarrassed personnel officer assured me that I should discard the loyalty-security papers, and proceed to the other forms. She also assured me that no future mailings would contain such materials. To my knowledge, I was the last applicant for New York State employment ever to encounter the Feinberg Law.
- When the Supreme Court first reviewed a constitutional challenge to New York’s Feinberg Law, and the loyalty screen that law imposed on public employees, the Justices’ response was clear and unambiguous: “[School] teachers may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere.” The Court specifically addressed, and resoundingly rejected, claims that the oath required of New York public workers abridged their federal constitutional liberties. Anyone who seriously contemplated reopening the issue of the Feinberg Law’s validity less than a decade and a half later might be seen as presumptuous or naïve or both. Yet that is precisely what a group of professors in Western New York did, and with remarkable success. The later case is the focus of this essay.
- The defendants promptly responded to the suit, addressing initially the question whether the constitutional claims were important enough to warrant the convening of a three-judge court. At that time and for over a decade thereafter, federal courts of three judges (typically one from the court of appeals and two from the district bench) were required when the constitutionality of a state law was drawn into question. The district judge before whom this issue came in the Keyishian case initially ruled that this requirement did not apply, so clearly was the law settled in favor of the Feinberg Law’s validity. ...and not discretionary (as is the case today for virtually all lower court proceedings). Since the abolition of the three-judge court requirement—save for a few special situations like challenges to the Communications Decency Act and the McCain–Feingold Campaign Finance Law—whether a case ever gets on the Supreme Court docket is entirely up to the Justices. Many cases that went...
- While everyone awaited the three-judge court’s ruling, a funny thing happened to the Feinberg Law. In June, 1965, the certificate requirement that had long been imposed under the law was suddenly rescinded by New York State civil service officials. Instead, each applicant for state employment was henceforth to be informed that the Feinberg Law and its provisions constituted part of his or her contract. The applicant was specifically to be warned of the disability or disqualification that would result from membership in any “subversive organization.” Should any applicant have questions, he or she “may request a personal interview,” noting that “refusal of a candidate to answer any question relevant to such inquiry by such officer shall be sufficient ground to refuse to make or recommend appointment.” This change in procedure would become a pivotal source of divergence among the courts that would now consider the case.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9: The Story of Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth: “Losing Battles, Winning Wars” 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Decision: Three Sides to the Story, Daily Cardinal, Mar. 23, 2000, 2000 WL 17589047.
- http://www.jsoline.com/story/index.aspx?id= 419906 (noting that the Foundation received $44,000 in 2004 and $88,000 in 2005).
- Brief of Amicus Curiae American Council on Education et al. in Support of Petitioners. The organizations that authored this brief are:
- American Council on Education;
- NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education;
- Open Chapter
- The story of the case reflects key aspects of the seemingly unbridgeable
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56 (1985) (moment of silence for mediation or silent prayer violated the Establishment Clause because “it was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose—indeed, the statute had no secular purpose”); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980) (state law requiring the posting of Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional because the law “has no secular legislative purpose”).
- Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies
- In December 1996, the district court held a two-day trial on the issue of damages. The court ruled against the plaintiffs and denied them any damages or attorneys’ fees. The court stressed that the plaintiffs could not prove that the School District was responsible for the violations of the First Amendment and under well-established law, a local government can be held liable only for its own policies or customs that violate the Constitution.
- He objected to the failure to grant en banc review and to clarify this muddled area of the law. He said: “When judges can pick and choose without the constraints imposed by precedent, the public is left stranded, vulnerable to liability, helplessly dependent on the panel it draws. We could fulfill our constitutional and professional duty to the public, vote this case en banc, and be of a single voice.”
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 1 result
- We thank the dozen authors whose work we highlight here. All of them were a joy to work with, and everyone came through with his or her promised best work, in timely fashion. We thank Paul Caron, John Bloomquist and Ryan Pfeiffer from Foundation Press, Jessica L. Contreras and Deborah Y. Jones from the University of Houston Law Center and Connie Miller from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. We also thank the Harold C. Schott Foundation for its support of this project.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 1 result
- This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 4th, 2007
- ISBN: 9781599410326
- Subject: Education Law
- Series: Law Stories
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This book provides an understanding of a dozen leading education-related cases, focusing on how the litigation was shaped by lawyers, judges, and social factors, and why the cases have attained landmark status. In this book, a group of prominent education and constitutional law scholars have brought to life 12 of the most interesting cases ever litigated, a number of which are taught in basic law school courses. Both cases in higher education settings and school law are included. Cases have been selected to provide a historical sampling of different times and important issues, including religion, finance, race gender, and disabilities.