Private Benefit Analysis

Reasoning: The court referenced Matter of Goldstein, in this matter the court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine that the role of the Judiciary is limited in reviewing findings of blight in eminent domain proceedings. They court found that expansion of private university could qualify as a civic purpose and that the UDC actually encourages in projects by private entities. They concluded that the Project’s purpose was to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local

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.

This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered.

The case had an impact in education with shareholders of education, laws, policies, and social interaction with the decision made. In addition, there are legal and ethical considerations to consider with what the Supreme Court’s decision on the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case. This paper will discuss the summery of the case, the impacts made on education, and the legal and ethical considerations of the final decision.

Susan, a young teenager, wanted to attend a better equipped school closer to her family home. This wish, combined with her father’s civil rights involvement, contributed to her family’s decision to file a court case to gain access to an all white school to which she had originally been denied access. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision regarding Clark versus Board of Directors was the first successful school desegregation case in the United States.

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.).

Board of Eduation. The issue of concern was whether New Jersey could reimburse transportation costs to the parents of schoolchildren, at both public and nonpublic schools. As a heavy assortment of the nonpublic schools were catholic, an anti-Catholic organization within the state challenged the program, arguing it violated the Establishment clause. In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the law, stating that transportation could be considered a child benefit. However, Everson’s legacy goes far beyond the upholding of New Jersey’s reimbursement program because it was the first case of its kind whose opinion dealt directly with the Establishment clause. Furthermore, the author of the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black, invoked the Jeffersonian metaphor of “a wall of separation,” writing, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.” Based upon this line of thinking alone, it is difficult to see why the court ruled in favor of the defendant. However, Justice Black also considered the requirements of Free Exercise clause, claiming that for the state to instate “public welfare legislation,” and then hampering citizens from receiving it on grounds of their religious beliefs would be a violation of the free exercise of the religion. Justice Black’s consideration of the Establishment clause in Everson therefore serves as demarcation point in the judicial history of education. Post-Everson, writes Hubert Morken, “many judicial challenges to educational policy have been couched in church/state

Whereas, certain disputes exist concerning G’onna Jones’ educational program while a student in the District, which claims are described in the case styled G’onna J. b/n/f Nikki Anne R. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 077-SE-1115 (“Claim”);

This meaning that the poorer the people within the neighbor the poorer the school districts will be. Although this case shed some light, it failed under the federal Equal Protection analysis because education was not a “fundamental right” recognized by the Constitution and because the educationally disadvantaged poor did not constitute a “suspect classification.” The Court refused to overturn the school finance system on grounds of inequality. Equally notable, this case “virtually abdicated any role for the federal courts in guaranteeing educational rights under the Federal Constitution,” leaving future plaintiffs “to state courts and constitutions for the change they seek (www.schoolfunding.com).”

It is an undeniable fact that children from poor families often start school far behind their high income peers, as shown by the chart from "Troubled Schools on Trial". Judge Thomas Moukawsher urged changes to Connecticut's educational policies that can only be enacted by the General Assembly. One could argue that Judge Moukawsher overstepped his boundaries as a judge in his decision, but that doesn't mean it should be automatically overturned. A legislative approach is always preferable to a judicial decision in lawmaking. However, both legislators and judges should be focused on their constitutional duty to provide adequate educational opportunities to all students, which means closing funding disparities between wealthy and poor districts,

The overall issue did Justice Vinson state in this case is the concept of the 14th Amendment which stipulates the equal protection clause. Thus, the petitioner will not get his full-constitutional right in the law school for Negroes that is not fully-equipped with facilities that will help him get his law degree. In addition, limited part-time educators for Negroes is unacceptable. Whereby, admission to the Texas University of Law School will provide him the best education that white people and other race achieved. Only then, that the 14th amendment will be

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the United States Supreme Court upheld racial segregation of passengers in railroad coaches as required by Louisiana law. Three years later the Supreme Court was asked to review its first school case dealing with equal treatment of school children. In Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899) the court found that the temporary cessation of services for minority high-school children did not violate equal protection even though services continued at the high-school for Caucasian children. The Court reasoned that the closing of the school was based on economic considerations, and was not found to represent bad faith or an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that although all must share the burdens and receive the benefits of taxation, school finance was a matter belonging to the states and federal interference without a clear and unmistakable disregard for constitutional rights would be inappropriate (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Thomas, 2004).

In the case of Yusef v. Wisconsin Department of Education, the court decided in majority opinion, 9-0, in favor of the Respondent. The Freeman’s Christian Academy is not in violation of neither the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI. Without the physical implementation of segregation amongst the students of color, their beliefs of segregation cannot be formally punished. There is a difference between advocation and employment, and because it cannot be proven that the funds received by the voucher system are used to promote the separation of people on the basis of religion and race, a rule set by the case, Lemon v. Kurtzmann, the Freeman's Christian Academy is lawful in receiving federal financial

The article “The Wrong Ruling on Vouchers” argues that continuing Cleveland’s controversial voucher program is a “bad decision on Constitutional grounds, and a bad one for American education” (Unknown 2002 NP).

John is of counsel with The Law Offices of Benjamin Misko in New Orleans. Prior to joining the firm John was a policy analyst for Tulane University's Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives. He also has experience working on a variety of legal and political issues, book