Recent developments--Supreme Court

Journal of Law and Education, Jan 2002

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO.: 01-163 NAME: In re Rittig DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cent. denied, 122 S.Ct. 330 (2001) DOCKET NO.: 00-1796 NAME: Bush v. Zeeland Public Schools Board of Education DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cent. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001)

DOCKET NO.: 00-1750 NAME: Martinez v. Crystal City Independent School District DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cent. denied, 122 S.Ct. 47 (2001)

DOCKET NO.: 00-1821 NAME: Stevenson v. Martin County Board of Education DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 54 (2001) DOCKET NO.: 00-1870 NAME: Fuller v. Rayburn DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cent. denied, 122 S.Ct. 61 (2001)

DOCKET NO.:01- 108 NAME: Asbury v. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education DATE: Oct. 1, 2001 CITATION: cert, denied, 122 S.Ct. 206 (2001)

DOCKET NO.: 01-250 NAME: Haley v. Chesapeake Public School System DATE: Oct. 9, 2001 CITATION: cert. denied, 70 U.S.L.W. 3266 (2001)

Decisions with written opinions in the Court of Appeals:

DOCKET NO.: 00-1745 NAME: Cooper v. Powell DATE: Oct. 1, 2001

Graduate student sued two university faculty members for violating her rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The student contends that her rights were violated when the faculty members refused to allow her to undertake a practicum (part of her course work) unless she revealed to her site supervisor that she had a manic-depressive condition. The faculty members claimed a qualified immunity from the suit and filed a motion to dismiss. The lower court denied this request and found the graduate student had a constitutionally protected interest in continuing her graduate studies without the limit placed on her by the faculty members. Held: An equally divided State Supreme Court found that there exists a constitutionally protected property interest in the student's right to continue her course of study, and therefore the faculty members are not entitled to a qualified immunity on that issue. As to the issue of her medical record the Court ruled that the graduate student had no protected liberty interest in refusing to disclose her mental health history. Cooper v. Powell, 622 N.W.2d 265 (Wise), cent. denied,122 S.Ct. 46 (2001).

DOCKET NO.: 00-1762 NAME: CM v. Henderson County Board of Education DATE: Oct. 1, 2001

Parents of a disabled child filed a complaint challenging a State law which provided aggrieved parties 60 days in which to file an administrative due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Plaintiffs had filed a request for reimbursement for moneys spent on placing their autistic child in a special program. This claim was denied and the parents filed an appeal. The Administrative Law Judge denied the request ruling that the State statute which imposes a 60 day filing period following a final decision barred plaintiff's appeal. Held: Court of Appeals found that the State statute's 60 day filing period was consistent with the IDEA. The Court limited their ruling by requiring that an affected party must have sufficient notice of this requirement by the agency denying their claim if they are to be limited to the 60 day filing period. CM v. Henderson County Board of Education, 241 F.3d 374 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 48 (2001).

DOCKET NO.: 00-1932 NAME: DiBari v. Bedford Central School District DATE: Oct. 1, 2001

Parents of schoolchildren sued school officials for violating their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs alleged that certain activities at various schools within the school district violated their rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Numerous activities were complained of including, but not limited to: A program on Indian culture centered around Ganesha (a Hindu God), the construction of worry dolls as part of an arts and crafts class, the celebration of Earth Day (the school contends that this is done to comply with an 1988 New York State Law dealing with observance of Conservation Day). The last activity consisted of playing a nature tape that had some prayers and invocations on it. The lower court found that not all but many of the programs had religious overtones, and were especially concerned that those affected were school children of young and impressionable ages. When dealing with young children the lower court stated that even subtle coercive pressure by a government official to engage in religious activity may violate the First Amendment. Held: Court of Appeals ruled that all the claims except the one pertaining to Earth Day were moot as all the plaintiffs either graduated or moved out of the district where the challenged activities arose. The Court found that on the issue of the Earth Day activities the school did not endorse any particular religion during the Earth Day celebrations and no student was forced to participate thus the activities did not interfere with student's and parent's rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Altman v. Bedford Central School District, 245 F.3d 49 (2nd Cir.), cent. denied, DiBari v. Bedford Central School District, 122 S.Ct. 68 (2001).