RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW-SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Journal of Law and Education, Oct 2004

Education Law cases Carried over from the Court's 2003-2004 Appellate Docket

DOCKET NO.: 02-1672

NAME: Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

DATE: June 14, 2004

CITATION: cert, granted, 309 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002)

DOCKET NO.: 03-1524

NAME: Haeberle v. University of Louisville

DATE: May 6, 2004

CITATION: cert, filed, 6th Cir. Unpublished Opinion

DOCKET NO.: 03-1557

NAME: Salehpoor v. Shahinpoor

DATE: May 18,2004

CITATION: cert. filed, 358 F.3d 782 (10th Cir. 2004)

DOCKET NO.: 03-1598

NAME: Rector and Visitors of George Mason University v. Shepard

DATE: May 26, 2004

CITATION: cert, filed, 182 Ed. Law Rep. 92 (4th Cir. 2003)

DOCKET NO.: 03-1628

NAME: George Mason University v. Litman

DATE: June 1, 2004

CITATION: cert. filed, 4th Cir. Unpublished Opinion

DOCKET NO.: 03-1661

NAME: Johnson v. Baker

DATE: June 14, 2004

CITATION: cert, filed, 6th Cir. Unpublished Opinion

Final Decision

DOCKET NO.: 02-1624

NAME: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

DATE: Feb. 14, 2004

Non-custodial father of an elementary school student sued the school district claiming that the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God," violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The father (Newdow), an atheist, claimed that because the pledge included the words "under God," the school district's policy of having all the students recite it each morning, was in fact a form of religious indoctrination that violates the First Amendment. An issue arose whether Newdow had the right to sue on behalf of his daughter since his ex-wife had sole legal custody. Newdow argued that even though he did not have legal custody of his child, this alone did not deprive him of his Article III standing to challenge as unconstitutional government action affecting his child. On appeal the United State Supreme Court took up two issues, 1) whether Newdow had standing as a non-custodial parent to challenge the school district's policy, and 2) if so, whether the policy violated the Constitution. Held: The Supreme Court held that Newdow did not have standing to challenge the school district's policy on behalf of his daughter. As such the Court found that it did not need to rule on the Constitutionality of the School District's policy. The Supreme Court looked to California law where the state courts had ruled that Newdow lacked the standing to sue as next of friend on behalf of his daughter. Since Newdow could not sue on behalf of his daughter in state court, the Supreme Court held that in this case he lacked standing to bring the suit in federal court. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 124 S.Ct. 2301 (2004)

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO.: 03-1292

NAME: Viriyapanthu v. Regents of University of California

DATE: May 17, 2004

CITATION: cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 2172 (2004)

This review reports all of the Supreme Court activity in education law during the months of May 16th, 2004-Aug. 31st, 2004.