The Role Of Political System On Administrative Law And Judicial Decision Making

Imagine you are the director of health information services for a medium-sized health care facility. Like many of your peers, you have contracted with an outside copying service to handle all requests for release of patient health information at your facility. You have learned that a lobbying organization for trial attorneys in your state is promoting legislation to place a cap on photocopying costs, which is significantly below the actual costs incurred as part of the contract. (Case Study, p. 20)

The New Jersey Court and Errors reversed the initial ruling and Justice Hugo Black delivered the court’s opinion on the case. “First. They authorized the State to take by taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon others to be used for their own private purposes. This, it is alleged, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second. The statute and the resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith. This is alleged to be a use of state power to support church schools contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment made applicable to the states” (Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 1947).

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

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

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: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

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.).

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

v. Chicago. In short, state entities ought to be held to the same legal standard in which they were when schools were

The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary for the NCAA because the courts recognized that the NCAA had no control of the incident. In the case brief, it was stated that the Court compared the Yost v. Wasbach College case, which the plaintiff filed a suit against his college, his local fraternity chapter, and the national fraternity due to injuries sustained at the local chapter house. In this case, summary judgment was granted to the National chapter because they are neither present nor responsible for the day-to-day activities of their local chapters. This particular case echoed the sentiments of the Lanni v. NCAA case. Even though Norte Dame University (the University where the incident occurred) is a member of the NCAA, it does not mean that the NCAA is not liable to the injury or negligent. Therefore, the Court favored the NCAA in their

“I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our Constitution of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust.” John T. Scopes. The state of Tennessee had beaten the defendant and had shown that they, no matter how good a trial, will not be bested when it came to the Butler Act. Scopes should’ve won the trial, except some limiting factors that made it virtually impossible for him to win was towards the end of the trial when all of his key witnesses had been struck from the record and could not be used to influence the final verdict, by the time the trial had started he already had a target on his back and he had already lost in the eyes of the country and how they treated the case as a publicity stunt and not the importance they needed to. This changed the view of people and the school’s.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against him under both disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses and whether the TVA appeal to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally supported to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011).

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 Supreme Court case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), revolves around the issue as to whether religious institutions can participate in public state secular aid programs. Back in 2012, Trinity Lutheran Church applied for the Scrap Tire Grant Program in Missouri in order to repair a playground in its preschool/daycare center. Under this program, Missouri would receive rubber from recycled tires that would be used to cover the play areas. The application, however, was declined by the Missouri state government because of a constitutional provision that stated that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” (American Bar)

In Virginia, a historic state military institute was criticized for not allowing females into a historically male university. The Court found that Virginia could not show a substantial correlation to any governmental interest. They said, “a tenable justification must