Recent developments in the law-Supreme Court review

Journal of Law and Education, Jul 2003

SUPREME COURT

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO.: 02-683

NAME: Morein v. Drexel University

DATE: Feb. 24, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1260 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1009

NAME: Scicchitano v. Mt. Carmel Area School Board

DATE: March 10, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1487 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1046

NAME: Dacosta v. Nwachukwa

DATE: March 10, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1489 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1152

NAME: Thurman v. Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors

DATE: March 24, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1595 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1216

NAME: Putnam v. Harlandale Independent School District

DATE: April 7, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 71 U.S.L.W. 3637 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1217

NAME: Chen v. New York

DATE: April 21, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 71 U.S.L.W. 3664 (2003)

DOCKET NO.: 02-1303

NAME: Clark v. La Marque Independent School District

DATE: April 21, 2003

CITATION: cert. denied, 71 U.S.L.W. 3664 (2003)

Decisions with written opinions in the Court of Appeals:

DOCKET NO.: 02-531

NAME: Okanogan School District No. 105 v. Bergeson

DATE: Feb. 24, 2003

Various school districts and parents of children within said districts sought to prevent the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Treasurer from reducing the districts' basic education allotment (BEA) by the amount received from the federal government for national forest lands money. The federal government transfers a percentage of money it collects from national forests within a state to be used as the state legislature prescribes on school districts and public roads of counties in which a public forest is situated. In Washington, the state reduces a district's BEA by the amount it receives through this fund. The districts and parents affected by this funding scheme wanted the state to advance all the allocated BEA funding plus the national forest monies. As a threshold matter, the district court found that the school districts and parents lacked standing to challenge the state's actions in federal court. Held: Court of appeals found that since the school districts are a political subdivision of the state, they have no standing to challenge the validity of a state statute in federal court. The court went on to find that the state's crediting of the districts' BEA funding by the amount disbursed under the national forest program is valid under the federal statutory scheme. The National Forest Management Act allows the states to decide how to spend federal forest funds for the benefit of its public schools. Thus crediting the BEA of the district is within the purview of the legislature. Okanogan School District No. 105 v. Bergeson, 291 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1253 (2003).

DOCKET NOS.: 02-737 & 02-936

NAME: Steele v. Industrial Development Board of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

DATE: Feb. 24, 2003

Taxpayers sought an injunction to block the Industrial Development Board from issuing tax-exempt bonds to help finance a low interest loan to a sectarian university. The board is authorized under state law to issue bonds to finance projects for any nonprofit educational institution in any manner related to or in furtherance of the educational purposes of such institution. The district court issued the injunction agreeing with the tax-payers that the issuance of the bonds violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Held: Court of appeals reversed the ruling of the district court. The funding scheme established by the state is part of a neutral program to benefit education. No government funds are expended and the benefit accorded to sectarian institutions is the same that would be provided to private companies. Furthermore, the court found that the revenue bond program would not lead to the public's perception of government endorsement of religion. Steele v. Industrial Development Board of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 301 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1254 (2003).

DOCKET NO.: 02-890

NAME: Clark County School District v. Eason

DATE: Feb. 24, 2003

Disabled student sued school district for the severe abuse and excessive corporal punishment he received from educators. The student claimed that the actions of the school violated his rights under the Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The district court held that all defendants in the case were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed the suit. Held: Court of appeals found that the school district was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In many instances local school boards are not considered arms of the state and thus do not automatically qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity. In the present case the court found that any judgment against the school district would not necessarily come out of state funds, as the State of Nevada would not bear any obligation to satisfy any adverse judgment against the district. In Nevada, the school district does not perform a central governmental function as the state has delegated the responsibility for education to local units. Under these facts, the court ruled that the school district was not acting as an arm of the state. Clark County School District v. Eason, 303 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1262 (2003).