Catalina Foothills School Case Study

• During the Catañeda vs. Pickard case a father claimed that his two children were not having their educational rights met at their school in the Raymondville Independent School District. The father, Mr. Catañeda, further stated that the Raymondville Independent School District was not providing a proper bilingual education program for his children.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

Decision: In 1985, the principal and superintendent of Westside High School (a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska) cited the Establishment Clause as a reason for denying the request of Bridget Mergens to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. Ms. Mergens took the case to court, and won at first. She lost on appeal at the 8th Circuit Court, and then later won in a 8-1 decision from the Supreme Court

This case was a very significant ruling for special education evident with numerous studies positing that the ruling of this 1982 case was perhaps the most important special education decision by the Supreme Court and to this day, continues to have a profound effect on the education of students with disabilities. Additionally, this was the first time that the Supreme Court had to interpret portions of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 1990), which was then the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) as it relates to what constituted a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a case regarding the education of undocumented Mexican children in Texas (Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Arguments stated that when the school district denied education to these children, the school district violated the children's right under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, in 1975, Texas passed a law that stated that school districts have the legal right to withhold state funds for educating unauthorized immigrants. This class action suit was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the lower courts upheld the school district's decision.

In 1982, the Supreme Court decided Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley. A deaf student, named Amy Rowley enrolled in kindergarten in public school in Peekskill, New York. Amy’s parents met with school administrators to plan for her attendance and to determine what supplemental services would be necessary for her education. Amy was assigned a sign language interpreter for a short portion of her kindergarten year. After two weeks, the sign language interpreter reported that Amy did not need the services inside of the classroom. Once Amy fished her kindergarten year and started first grade, an IEP was prepared for Amy’s assistances. The IEP was provided to Amy and her parents that she would be kept in the

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

In doing so, California is safeguarding concerns of religious groups, and those worried about civil liberties. California is not singling out money for one religious order, instead any student that qualifies for aid is eligible. This shows that the state is not favoring one religion, but rather the state is working in the interest of the students. In addition, the State can show the breadth of the law makes it neutral considering it effectively applies to every individual who requests grant money. The neutrality of the law ensures that it is not endorsing one religion over another, and both Mitchell v Helms and Zelman v Simmons-Harris set a precedent in neutrality. Thus, using the Sherbert Test, Mitchell v. Helms, and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris government assistance is constitutional when offered equitably to students attending both public and private religious schools. However, those were merely counterarguments, and California contends current precedent is dictated using the Smith test established in Employment Division v.

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

A public school in New York during the start of each school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance and followed by a nondenominational prayer. The New York state law also allowed students to skip the prayer if found offensive. A parent of a student attending this school sued deeming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Supreme Courts majority rule (8-1) claimed YES the public school sponsored prayer violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even with allowing students to skip the prayer, it was still considered unconstitutional. This case is important because Chief Justice, Earl Warren states that school sanctioned prayers, including any type of public promotion of religion, violates the Establishment

The first part of the lemon test refers to having a secular purpose. This is asking whether or not there is a religious or spiritual basis in the activity or teaching. If the answer is no, then there is not a violation of the law. If it is proven that there is a secular purpose, then it would be in violation of the establishment clause. The second part of the lemon test says that is must neither advance nor inhibit religion. So essentially, religion conversation or discussion should be left out of an activity. This is either in support of, or demonstrative actions towards religion. The third part of the lemon tests says that it must not create excessive government entanglement with religion. If any of these three parts or violated, then the act is in violation of the law (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp.)

Board of Education (1947) was a New Jersey case that rose to the Supreme Court and lead to a landmark decision. The Board of Education was reimbursing students for taking public transportation to and from both public and private schools. A taxpayer objected to the use of public funds to reimburse any student attending a religious school. The Supreme Court found the state statute allowing the reimbursement valid, in part because the reimbursement was paid to the parents of the students and not a religious institution, and the payments were available to everyone, not only those attending a religious institution. The decision was significant for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court ruled the establishment clause would now apply to the states. Secondly, Justice Hugo Black, in writing the majority opinion, stated, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” This is one of the most egregious cases of judicial activism, trying to accomplish what from the bench what the Legislature could not accomplish in 1876. It is particularly troublesome because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution or any federal statute, and the addition of the phrases, “that wall must be kept high and impregnable” and “we could not approve the slightest breach” drastically changes the context in which it was written. Additionally, since

The last century has seen a great deal of governmental interaction with religious groups and practices. As a result, the use of litigation to settle these disputes has been extremely prevalent. Perhaps, the first trial to outline the Establishment Clause was Everson v. Board of Education. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision upholding a New Jersey program that covered the cost of bus transportation for students attending private schools (Rossum, 281). Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religious students, it unanimously agreed that the Establishment Clause was designed to serve as a separating force between church and state.

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).