Con rights and libs Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Terms in this set (12)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Although no public schools from adjacent districts opted to participate in the program, fifty-six private schools, 80 percent of them religious, did. Religious schools were the choice of 96.7 percent of the students who used tuition vouchers to attend private schools. A majority of students who used the scholarship program to attend religious schools were not of the same faith as the schools' sponsoring religious organizations.
What led to this case?
In the 1990s the Cleveland school district faced a crisis. The district served some seventy-five thousand children, most of them from low-income, minority families. Evaluation studies found it to be one of the worst-performing school districts in the nation. The district failed to meet any of the eighteen state standards for minimal acceptable performance. Only 10 percent of ninth graders could pass basic proficiency examinations.
(Pilot Project Scholarship Program)
1. Continue in Cleveland public schools as before.
2. Receive a scholarship (up to $2,250 per year) to attend an accredited, private, nonreligious school.
3. Receive a scholarship (up to $2,250 per year) to attend an accredited, private, religious school.
4. Remain in the Cleveland public schools and receive up to $500 in tutorial assistance.
5. Attend a public school outside the district. Other public school districts accepting Cleveland students would receive $2,250 from the Cleveland district, as well as normal state funding for each student enrolled.
from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background.
who filed suit and why?
Doris Simmons-Harris and other local citizens filed suit against Susan Tave Zelman, Ohio's superintendent of public instruction, charging that the voucher program violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. Both the federal district court and the court of appeals struck down the program. The state asked for Supreme Court review.
It is religiously neutral and affords true private choice to parents.
Respondant Doris Simmons-Harris:
creates a public perception that the state is endorsing religious practices and beliefs.
Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?
a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, argued that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause.
It was decided that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because it wasn't specifically tailored to religous schools but rather the general population. The voucher instead gave the option for people to choose where to send their kids. It is because of that, that the 1st amendment was not violated.
Justice Thomas concurring:
These programs address the root of the problem with failing urban public schools that disproportionately affect minority students
Justice O'Connor concurring
The Court's opinion in these cases focuses on a narrow question related to the Lemon test: how to apply the primary effects prong in indirect aid cases? Specifically, it clarifies the basic inquiry when trying to determine whether a program that distributes aid to beneficiaries, rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion or, as I have put it, of "endors[ing] or disapprov[ing] . . . religion."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Amend 1 - Final Exam
Ch 2: Religion and Public Schools
AG Chapter 19 Section B
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 564 U.S. ___ (2011)
United States v. Williams 553 U.S. 285 (2008)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
United States v. American Library Association (2003).
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Con Rights and Libs Sherbert v. Verner
Con rights and libs Van Orden v. Perry
Con rights and libs Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
Con rights and libs Rosenberger v UVA