REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES 1
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES 11
Review of School Law Cases
Name
School of Education, Liberty University
Author Note
Name
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Name
Email:
Review of School Law Cases
Three important court cases have impacted the field of education. These court cases have set precedent and should help inform school administrators as they make decisions.
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Louis Grumet, et al.
In 1994, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Kiryas Joel Village School District’s boundaries were unconstitutional due to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Facts of the Case
Signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York passed a statute that drew a school district boundary around a village of people with unique religious and cultural practices. They practiced the Jewish religion of Satmar Hasidim and adhered to customs and a culture different from their surrounding areas. This district was named the Kiryas Joel Village School District. The purpose of this statute was to allow the villagers to operate a school district inside their village that could meet the needs of students with special needs. While most children in the village continued to attend private religious schools, those parents with children who had special needs, including emotional, physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities, previously enrolled their children outside their village in the Monroe-Woodbury School District. These parents were dissatisfied and said their children experienced trauma “in leaving their own community and being with people whose ways were so different” (Board, 1994, p. 692). As a result, parents withdrew their children from the Monroe-Woodbury School District and their children either received private interventions for their disabilities or none at all. The new Kiryas Joel Village School District only offered services to children with special needs and did not offer a general education. Most of the village’s children continued their attendance at their parochial schools.
The New York State School Boards Association “brought this action against the State Education Department and various state officials” (Board, 1994, p. 694) declaring that the establishment of the Kiryas Joel Village School District was a government establishment of religion and was therefore unconstitutional according to New York’s State Constitution and the United States Constitution. The case was heard by a trial court and they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the New York State Boards Association, because the “statute’s primary effect was an impermissible advancement of religious belief” (Board, 1994, p. 743).
The decision was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court and was decided in June of 1994. The majority of the Court upheld the Court of Appeals of New York’s decision. Justices Souter, Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, Blackman, and Kennedy concurred with the judgment of the lower court. Chief Justice Rehnquest, Justice Antony Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The Major Issues of the Case
The first major issue concerns the educational needs of the children who lived within the Hasidic Jewish village. Under the federal legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990 (IDEA), all children with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate education. Also, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides protection for students with disabilities from being excluded from services and from being discriminated against. Since the Hasidic Jewish children experienced such a culture shock while attending the nearby public school for their special educational services, their parents could have argued that they were not given a free and appropriate education because it was a burden to travel outside their community to school.
The next issue is a constitutional one that concerns the powers of government and the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. When the state of New York entrusted the village to run a school district funded by the government, they appeared to approve of one religious group and possibly disapprove of others, violating the Establishment Clause. The state drew the school district boundary strictly around the Hasidic Jewish village, which was a different practice for drawing boundaries than had previously been done. It had the appearance of governmental favor of one particular religious group.
Rationale Given About the Case
The redistricting attempt came as a result of other Supreme Court decisions that disallowed public schools from offering special services in religious schools. Therefore, the village children had to go outside their community to receive special education services. Since this was traumatic for the children, the state of New York was attempting to meet the needs of those children. In the dissenting statement by Justice Scalia, he made the argument that the intent of the Establishment Clause was “to ensure that no one powerful sect or combination of sects could use political or governmental power to punish dissenters” (Board, 1994, p. 780). This was not happening in this case. He also thought that concentrated areas of people who espouse the same beliefs were very American and he pointed to the entire state of Utah and New Mexico as examples. These areas of homogeneous belief do not constitute government’s establishment of religion.
The Holdings from the Judges
The court determined that New York state did in fact violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution because it offered special treatment to the village that was not offered to other religious sects or villages. Further, when New York granted the power to run a public school district to the village, there was a potential for those in authority to be all of one religious sect. The court was concerned that in order to qualify for a board position with the school district, one would need to satisfy a religious test of conformity.
My Reaction to the Case
The needs of the children seem to have been lost in the majority decision statement. They determined that the needs of the children could be met in another way, but all the discussion focused on the constitutional issue of a government establishment of religion. The motive of the school district was not discussed, and I wonder why that was not relevant? In the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia said that the district line was cultural and not based on religion. However, Governor Cuomo did admit that the villagers were all of one religious sect. In law cases, is the potential result or potential future results the most important issue at stake? If the district had explicitly said the line and special boundary action was due to cultural responsiveness, this may not have been heard. If the district intended the drawing of district lines to be for religious purposes, then I can understand the majority decision. I suppose the Monroe-Woodbury School District should have instead established a school within the boundaries of the village to provide for their special needs instead of the state drawing a boundary that relinquished governmental authority to a group of religiously homogenous people.
I really enjoyed reading Justice Scalia’s dissent. His opinion was so different from the majority’s and I could see his perspective as well. He pointed out that the Establishment Clause was to prevent the government from building up a religious sect so powerful that they could punish dissenters. This was hardly what was happening in this particular case. It is interesting that Justice Scalia pointed to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, et al.
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a student group at the University of Virginia because the university discriminated against the students for their religious viewpoints.
The Facts of the Case
Wide Awake Productions, a student organization at the University of Virginia published a newspaper with religious opinions and they requested UVA to make payment to a third-party printer. The group of students was a “Contracted Independent Organization (CIO)” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 819), and they were eligible to receive money from the Student Activities Fund, like other CIO groups. Because the published newspaper contained religious material and had a mission “to challenge Christians to live, in word and deed, according to the faith they proclaim and to encourage students to consider what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means” (Rosenberger, 1995, p.826), the university denied their request for payment.
The University of Virginia had a policy that prohibited Student Activities Fund dollars from going towards any religious activity that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 825). However, UVA had already granted the student group CIO status thereby agreeing that the group was not a religious organization. The university was concerned that if they paid for the printing of the newspaper that they would be violating the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, and in a reversal of a lower court’s judgment, The Supreme Court decided in favor of the students. The Supreme Court determined that the school’s policy was a violation of the students’ right to free speech. Further, this violation of their First Amendment right could not be excused by an attempt to adhere to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 820).
The Major Issues of the Case
The First Amendment’s freedom of speech is the main issue of the case. To censor opinions due to their religious nature violates the First Amendment. The question rests on whether or not UVA is promoting those ideas by allowing the Student Activities Fund to pay for the printing of the publication.
A secondary issue is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The university did not want to violate the Establishment Clause and was afraid that in granting student funds to publish a paper with religious ideas, that they were, in fact, promoting those ideas. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Souter argued that the Establishment Clause is indeed violated by this ruling. He also spent time quoting passages that had been printed in the newspaper and did not like that the passages were evangelistic in nature.
Rationale Given About the Case
At first, UVA argued that they would violate the Establishment Clause if they allowed student funds to pay for a newspaper that published religious viewpoints. Later, they argued that if they had to pay the third-party printer, that it would “defeat the ability of public education at all levels to control the use of public funds” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 838).
The students’ rationale for filing suit was that their right to free speech was being violated. They met all the required criteria to be a CIO and in turn were eligible for student funds. The University of Virginia was not favoring their group over others, promoting a particular religious viewpoint. Rather they were a neutral government body.
The Holdings from the Judges
When the university denied payment for the third-party printer, they were also denying the students’ right to free speech. The university’s guidelines themselves were unconstitutional because they did “not exclude religion as a subject matter, but selects for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 820). Further, the university’s attempts to adhere to the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution does not grant them the ability to disallow students’ viewpoints.
My Reaction to the Case
In Dr. Beam’s video for this course, she said we should not lose sight of common sense. It seems to me that two lower courts lost sight of common sense. So long as all approved CIO groups had similar opportunities, then UVA was in no way trying to establish a religion. I was surprised that four Justices dissented. In Justice Souter’s dissent, he spent time quoting passages that had been printed in the newspaper and did not like that the passages were evangelistic in nature (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 865-867). I actually got a little annoyed at his dissent. We are all worshipers and religious in nature—we either worship the True God, a fake god, the enemy, or ourselves. Secular Humanism is just as much a religion as Christianity, and I do not understand why it is okay for the government to establish that religion. Perhaps it is good I did not go into law!
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. and Ernesto Pichardo v. City of Hialeah
In 1993, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s judgment that the Church of Lukkumi Babalu in Hialeah, Florida could not continue their religious practice of animal sacrifice.
The Facts of the Case
The Church of the Lukumi Babalu are members of the Santeria religion. They use animal sacrifice in their worship and rituals. The animals are usually eaten after the sacrifice. When they leased land in Hialeah, Florida, the city disallowed this practice based on a number of old and new ordinances related to the cruelty of animals. The city held town meetings and wrote laws to stop the church’s practice of animal sacrifice. The church filed suit “alleging violations of their rights under, inter alia, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment” (Lukumi, 1993, p. 520). The District Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city of Hialeah. The United States Supreme Court reversed that judgment.
The Major Issues of the Case
The main issue in this case if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The rights of the church to participate in animal sacrifices were targeted and suppressed by Hialeah.
Rationale Given About the Case
The respondents argued that killing an animal for religious, ritualistic, or ceremonial purposes is not a legal killing because it is not necessary. They also said that “the sacrificing of animals within the city limits is contrary to the public health, safety, welfare and morals of the community” (Lukumi, 1993, p. 528).
The petitioners argued that they were being harassed and that their right to the free exercise of religion was being violated.
The Holdings from the Judges
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment because the city’s ordinances violated the free exercise principles in the First Amendment. In Justice Kennedy’s opinion, he said that the city was burdening the church because the city’s ordinances were not neutral and not generally applied. They were specifically prohibiting this church from killing animals, but did not apply those ordinances to other instances of animal killings, like pest removal. Kennedy also held that the “ordinances’ texts and operation demonstrate that they are not neutral, but have as their object the suppression of Santeria’s central element, animal sacrifice” (Lukumi, 1993, p. 521).
My Reaction to the Case
I was impressed that the motives of the city in the passage and application of their ordinances against the church were addressed. They were specifically trying to impede the religious practice of the church, a violation of their free exercise rights. The Court heard recorded testimony of people jeering church members and cheering when a comment was made about how Cuba imprisoned Santeria worshipers (Lukumi, 1993, p. 541). I was surprised that the city passed new ordinances that directly targeted this church and their religious practice, completely ignoring the First Amendment. They did not like the practice and took aim to suppress the church’s rights, forgetting that the First Amendment is crucial for the protection of their own rights. I was even more surprised that the Florida Attorney General and two courts agreed with the city of Hialeah.
References
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U. S. 687 (1994)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993)
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995)
- WE OFFER THE BEST CUSTOM PAPER WRITING SERVICES. WE HAVE DONE THIS QUESTION BEFORE, WE CAN ALSO DO IT FOR YOU.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO ChatGPT.NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER
Looking for unparalleled custom paper writing services? Our team of experienced professionals at AcademicWritersBay.com is here to provide you with top-notch assistance that caters to your unique needs.
We understand the importance of producing original, high-quality papers that reflect your personal voice and meet the rigorous standards of academia. That’s why we assure you that our work is completely plagiarism-free—we craft bespoke solutions tailored exclusively for you.
Why Choose AcademicWritersBay.com?
- Our papers are 100% original, custom-written from scratch.
- We’re here to support you around the clock, any day of the year.
- You’ll find our prices competitive and reasonable.
- We handle papers across all subjects, regardless of urgency or difficulty.
- Need a paper urgently? We can deliver within 6 hours!
- Relax with our on-time delivery commitment.
- We offer money-back and privacy guarantees to ensure your satisfaction and confidentiality.
- Benefit from unlimited amendments upon request to get the paper you envisioned.
- We pledge our dedication to meeting your expectations and achieving the grade you deserve.
Our Process: Getting started with us is as simple as can be. Here’s how to do it:
- Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top or the “Order Now” button at the bottom. You’ll be directed to our order form.
- Provide the specifics of your paper in the “PAPER DETAILS” section.
- Select your academic level, the deadline, and the required number of pages.
- Click on “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to provide your registration details, then “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT.”
- Follow the simple payment instructions and soon, our writers will be hard at work on your paper.
AcademicWritersBay.com is dedicated to expediting the writing process without compromising on quality. Our roster of writers boasts individuals with advanced degrees—Masters and PhDs—in a myriad of disciplines, ensuring that no matter the complexity or field of your assignment, we have the expertise to tackle it with finesse. Our quick turnover doesn’t mean rushed work; it means efficiency and priority handling, ensuring your deadlines are met with the excellence your academics demand.