Court Of The United States

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

These ensure that each sex of person receives equal opportunity to participate in federally funded programs. If the federal government funds the program, the program must follow Title IX and Section 1983 legislation. Each of these statues removes the bias of gender, age, race, color, etc. and allow for equal opportunities to participate in federally funded programs. The equal protection issue resurfaces in instances where federal funding is not in place. Grove City College and 4 students attempted to manipulate the rules to avoid a Title IX lawsuit by removing federal funding altogether (Grove City College v. Bell, 1984). The college pleaded to the Supreme Court to remove federal funding to avoid noncompliance, as they are a private, liberal arts college that does not accept federal assistance or Regular Disbursement Systems from the Department of Education. However, the students involved received federal Basic Educational Opportunity Grants, which qualifies them and thus the school as being federally funded. Based on this information, the school was not following the laws set in place regarding federal funding and was unable to execute the Assurance of Compliance. In regarding equal protection, the Assurance of Compliance ensures that programs receiving federal assistance are aware of their agreement with the law and of all obligations regarding

Currently the Fifth and Eighth Circuits almost exclusively use the assumption approach when addressing property interests in student due process cases. The assumption approach is different from other approaches this Comment has addressed, because it does not actually decide whether a student has a property interest. Instead, the assumption approach serves as a gap-filler for courts to avoid property interests, unless the particular facts of a case require that it does so. Instead of deciding whether a property interest exists, many courts proceed straight to determining whether a university provided a student sufficient

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

Then, in a 1984 decision, Grove City v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Title IX. In that ruling, the court said Title IX did not cover entire educational institutions - only those programs directly receiving federal funds. Other programs, such as athletics, that did not receive federal funds, were free to discriminate on the basis of gender.

The Carter, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush administrations put a low priority on enforcing Title IX, and as a result, educational programs felt no real need to comply with the law (Anderson et al., 2006). When, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Title IX was only applicable to the specific programs that directly received federal aid, athletic programs became legally exempt from compliance (Suggs, 2002). This situation lasted until 1988, when Congress, overriding a veto by President Reagan, enacted the Civil Rights Restoration Act. This law restored the broad interpretation of Title IX, in which Title IX applied to all programs or activities at institutions that received federal funds, whether or not a program was a direct recipient of these funds (U.S. Department of Justice,

In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. "The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a few sports for men. As a result, the university eliminated the men's soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1999 spring semester (Challenge 2002)." On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claming that the defendants' elimination of the men's wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U.S.C.& et seq. And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court found that the plaintiffs failed

This case involves the Plaintiff, Kelly Pryor, and the Defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, in a complex argument that involves racial discrimination under Title VI and the NCAA adoption of Proposition 16 as well as Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims. The court must carefully consider the claims Pryor has brought forth and determine if the discrimination of Proposition 16 was purposefully adopted by adding certain education requirement to ultimately hinder the amount of scholarships awarded to incoming black student athletes. Throughout this case analysis, I will weigh the different evidence presented from both parties and report the court’s reasoning for decisions made in Pryor v.

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

Opinion: The court ruled that the University of California's policy was unconstitutional. They argued that a state is permitted to use race as a factor, however

Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding. Title IX states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.(TitleIX1972)” Title IX goes on into more depth and if you wish to learn more about Title IX you can visit ”http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm”,but I will be focusing mainly on this highlight of the law. When analyzing this law

In 1984, Grove City College officials, in order to keep an autonomous institution, did not accept federal funds or aids. However, things became complicated when the college accepted a large amount of students who received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs).  Because grants are given by a federal bureau, the ED saw this as the Grove City College officials accepting federal funds.  As a result, the ED put the Grove City under the order of TITLE IX; therefore, they also had to issue an Assurance of Compliance form and get Grove College City to sign it. When Grove City refused to sign the compliance form the ED cut off the financial aid to the students attending the college.

The school then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the state may consider race as a factor for admittance for diversity, but only if other circumstances are

Just as Affirmative Action can be utilized within the admission process for college institutions, it can be used in the financial aid decisions for student’s funding of their education. And, while the decisions for college admissions can be based in part of affirmative action pending the institution’s election of voluntary, race-neutral, or race-conscious admissions – Federal financial aid must have specific boundaries as well. Chace (2012) states a structure of financial aid and admissions systems within a higher education institution give clear indications to incoming students what a school’s value and mission may be, without having to say it distinctly word for word.