Running head: REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
1
Review of School Law Cases 1-3
Ronel Brewer
Liberty University
Summer 2019 EDUC 647
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
2
Review of School Law Cases
Precedent is the basis for which other laws can be based. The following three are some of
the most important cases for the field of education. These should help school administrators to
establish a reference point for their cases.
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Louis Grumet, et al.
The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was said to be violated in
1994 by Kiryas Joel Village School and their district’s boundaries according to the United States
Supreme Court.
The Facts of the Case
Governor Andrew Cuomo passed a statute that drew a school district boundary around a
village of people with unique religious and cultural practices in New York. The Kiryas Joel
Village School District practiced the Jewish religion of Satmar Hasidim. The purpose of this
statute was to allow the villagers to operate a school district inside their village that could meet
the needs of students with special needs. Without this provision the students were required to
travel to the neighboring district for services for their students with special needs. These parents
said their children experienced trauma “in leaving their own community and being with people
whose ways were so different” (Board, 1994, p. 692). Because of this, parents withdrew their
children from the Monroe-Woodbury School District and their children either received private
interventions for their disabilities or none at all.
The New York State School Boards Association took action in saying that the school
district was unconstitutional in setting up this division in favor of a religion and using state funds
to do so. This went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld six to three.
The Major Issues of the Case
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
3
Under the federal legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990 (IDEA), all
children with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate education. Also, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides protection for students with disabilities from being
excluded from services and from being discriminated against. The inclusion model and that least
restrictive environment are what all children are entitled to. The idea is to provide the appropriate
services. That is specific in that the services should not be more than a student needs but not less
than they need either. These students should not have had to travel outside of their district for
these services.
Funding by the government that is purely for this village becomes a constitutional
contradiction in that it seems as if the government is funding a specific religion. The question
then becomes why this religion over another? In order for the government to provide these
services they have to provide them for all in need or else equity becomes an issue.
Rationale Given About the Case
The reason that the government began funding this village was based on previous rulings
that the courts made to not fund the private schools with provisions for students with special
needs. Due to this ruling, New York believed that by funding the village they were working in
favor of equity. However the way that the students were made to feel, combined with the
distance that they were made to travel destroyed the concept of equity.
The Holdings From the Judges
It was determined that by granting these services to this specific religious sect that it was
a constitutional violation in that this was not provided to other religious sects. There was also a
strong belief that because of the school being located where it was that hiring would be restricted
to professionals that all must fall under that sect as well. In using public funds this too was
unconstitutional.
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
4
My Reaction to the Case
The student is always the priority and in this case they seemed to the backdrop to the
issue being discussed which was religion. The needs of the children seem to have been lost in the
majority decision statement. They determined that the needs of the children could be met in
another way, but all the discussion focused on the constitutional issue of a government
establishment of religion. The motive of the school district was not discussed, and I wonder why
that was not relevant? In the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia said that the district line was
cultural and not based on religion. However, Governor Cuomo did admit that the villagers were
all of one religious sect. In law cases, is the potential result or potential future results the most
important issue at stake? If the district had explicitly said the line and special boundary action
was due to cultural responsiveness, this may not have been heard. If the district intended the
drawing of district lines to be for religious purposes, then I can understand the majority decision.
I suppose the Monroe-Woodbury School District should have instead established a school within
the boundaries of the village to provide for their special needs instead of the state drawing a
boundary that relinquished governmental authority to a group of religiously homogenous people.
I really enjoyed reading Justice Scalia’s dissent. His opinion was so different from the
majority’s and I could see his perspective as well. He pointed out that the Establishment Clause
was to prevent the government from building up a religious sect so powerful that they could
punish dissenters. This was hardly what was happening in this particular case. It is interesting
that Justice Scalia pointed to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, et al.
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
5
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a student group at the
University of Virginia because the university discriminated against the students for their religious
viewpoints.
The Facts of the Case
Wide Awake Productions, a student organization at the University of Virginia published a
newspaper with religious opinions and they requested UVA to make payment to a third party
printer. The group of students was a “Contracted Independent Organization (CIO)” (Rosenberger,
1995, p. 819), and they were eligible to receive money from the Student Activities Fund, like
other CIO groups. Because the published newspaper contained religious material and had a
mission “to challenge Christians to live, in word and deed, according to the faith they proclaim
and to encourage students to consider what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means”
(Rosenberger, 1995, p.826), the university denied their request for payment.
The University of Virginia had a policy that prohibited Student Activities Fund dollars
from going towards any religious activity that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular
belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 825). However, UVA
had already granted the student group CIO status thereby agreeing that the group was not a
religious organization. The university was concerned that if they paid for the printing of the
newspaper that they would be violating the Establishment Clause of the United States
Constitution. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, and in a reversal of a
lower court’s judgment, The Supreme Court decided in favor of the students. The Supreme Court
determined that the school’s policy was a violation of the students’ right to free speech. Further,
this violation of their First Amendment right could not be excused by an attempt to adhere to the
Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 820).
The Major Issues of the Case
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
6
The First Amendment’s freedom of speech is the main issue of the case. To censor
opinions due to their religious nature violates the First Amendment. The question rests on
whether or not UVA is promoting those ideas by allowing the Student Activities Fund to pay for
the printing of the publication.
A secondary issue is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The university
did not want to violate the Establishment Clause and was afraid that in granting student funds to
publish a paper with religious ideas, that they were, in fact, promoting those ideas. In the
dissenting opinion, Justice Souter argued that the Establishment Clause is indeed violated by this
ruling. He also spent time quoting passages that had been printed in the newspaper and did not
like that the passages were evangelistic in nature.
Rationale Given About the Case
At first, UVA argued that they would violate the Establishment Clause if they allowed
student funds to pay for a newspaper that published religious viewpoints. Later, they argued that
if they had to pay the third party printer, that it would “defeat the ability of public education at all
levels to control the use of public funds” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 838).
The students’ rationale for filing suit was that their right to free speech was being
violated. They met all the required criteria to be a CIO and in turn were eligible for student
funds. The University of Virginia was not favoring their group over others, promoting a
particular religious viewpoint. Rather they were a neutral government body.
The Holdings From the Judges
When the university denied payment for the third party printer, they were also denying
the students’ right to free speech. The university’s guidelines themselves were unconstitutional
because they did “not exclude religion as a subject matter, but selects for disfavored treatment
those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints” (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 820).
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
7
Further, the university’s attempts to adhere to the Establishment Clause of the United States
Constitution does not grant them the ability to disallow students’ viewpoints.
My Reaction to the Case
In Dr. Beam’s video for this course, she said we should not lose sight of common sense. It
seems to me that two lower courts lost sight of common sense. So long as all approved CIO
groups had similar opportunities, then UVA was in no way trying to establish a religion. I was
surprised that four Justices dissented. In Justice Souter’s dissent, he spent time quoting passages
that had been printed in the newspaper and did not like that the passages were evangelistic in
nature (Rosenberger, 1995, p. 865-867). I actually got a little annoyed at his dissent. We are all
worshipers and religious in nature—we either worship the True God, a fake god, the enemy, or
ourselves. Secular Humanism is just as much a religion as Christianity, and I do not understand
why it is okay for the government to establish that religion. Perhaps it is good I did not go into
law!
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. and Ernesto Pichardo v. City of Hialeah
In 1993, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s judgment that the Church of
Lukkumi Babalu in Hialeah, Florida could not continue their religious practice of animal
sacrifice.
The Facts of the Case
The Church of the Lukumi Babalu are members of the Santeria religion. They use animal
sacrifice in their worship and rituals. The animals are usually eaten after the sacrifice. When they
leased land in Hialeah, Florida, the city disallowed this practice based on a number of old and
new ordinances related to the cruelty of animals. The city held town meetings and wrote laws to
stop the church’s practice of animal sacrifice. The church filed suit “alleging violations of their
rights under, inter alia, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment” (Lukumi, 1993, p.
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
8
520). The District Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city of Hialeah. The United
States Supreme Court reversed that judgment.
The Major Issues of the Case
The main issue in this case if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The
rights of the church to participate in animal sacrifices were targeted and suppressed by Hialeah.
Rationale Given About the Case
The respondents argued that killing an animal for religious, ritualistic, or ceremonial
purposes is not a legal killing because it is not necessary. They also said that “the sacrificing of
animals within the city limits is contrary to the public health, safety, welfare and morals of the
community” (Lukumi, 1993, p. 528).
The petitioners argued that they were being harassed and that their right to the free
exercise of religion was being violated.
The Holdings From the Judges
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment because the city’s ordinances
violated the free exercise principles in the First Amendment. In Justice Kennedy’s opinion, he
said that the city was burdening the church because the city’s ordinances were not neutral and not
generally applied. They were specifically prohibiting this church from killing animals, but did
not apply those ordinances to other instances of animal killings, like pest removal. Kennedy also
held that the “ordinances’ texts and operation demonstrate that they are not neutral, but have as
their object the suppression of Santeria’s central element, animal sacrifice” (Lukumi, 1993, p.
521).
My Reaction to the Case
I was impressed that the motives of the city in the passage and application of their
ordinances against the church were addressed. They were specifically trying to impede the
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
9
religious practice of the church, a violation of their free exercise rights. The Court heard recorded
testimony of people jeering church members and cheering when a comment was made about how
Cuba imprisoned Santeria worshipers (Lukumi, 1993, p. 541). I was surprised that the city
passed new ordinances that directly targeted this church and their religious practice, completely
ignoring the First Amendment. They did not like the practice and took aim to suppress the
church’s rights, forgetting that the First Amendment is crucial for the protection of their own
rights. I was even more surprised that the Florida Attorney General and two courts agreed with
the city of Hialeah.
REVIEW OF SCHOOL LAW CASES
1
0
References
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U. S. 687
(1994) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993)
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995)
