1 WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS21254 Education Vouchers: An Overview of the Supreme Court s Decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Christopher Alan Jennings, American Law Division Updated July 3, 2002 Abstract. This report provides factual background and summarizes the Court s prior precedent, the Sixth Circuit s decision, and the Supreme Court s analysis of the relevant constitutional issues relating to education vouchers.
2 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21254 July 3, 2002 Education Vouchers: an Overview of the Supreme Court s Decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Christopher Jennings Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary Education vouchers generally refer to school choice programs in which the state will help parents pay tuition for their children to attend out-of-district public schools, charter schools, private schools, and, sometimes, religious schools. When vouchers are used by parents to send their children to religious school, public dollars flow from public to religious coffers, and therefore, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court upheld an Ohio school educational choice program that gave poor families in the Cleveland public school system an opportunity to send their children largely at state expense to private schools, including religious schools. This report provides factual background and summarizes the Court s prior precedent, the Sixth Circuit s decision, and the Supreme Court s analysis of the relevant constitutional issues. It will not be updated. Background. Vouchers generally refer to school choice programs in which the state will help parents pay tuition for their children to attend out-of-district public schools, charter schools, private schools, and, sometimes, religious schools. A voucher can take the form of a direct subsidy, a grant, or a tax benefit. Proponents of vouchers claim that America s elementary and secondary educational system are in disrepair and can only be revitalized by making schools compete to attract students. Vouchers, they argue, are the most feasible way to inject competition into education. Critics of vouchers decry the loss of money to public schools, and charge that when vouchers can be used to attend a religious school the constitutionally drawn line between church and state blurs. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 1 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld an Ohio school choice program, which, among other options, gave parents vouchers which could be used to send their children to a private, religious school. The purpose of the program U.S. (2002)(slip opinion). For analysis of cases prior to Zelman, see CRS Report RL30165, Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases. Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
3 CRS-2 was to give poor families in the Cleveland public school system an opportunity to send their children largely at state expense to schools they prefer to their local public school. As designed, the program provided scholarships worth up to $2,250 a year for children to attend either private schools within the city limits, including sectarian schools, or public schools in the school districts around Cleveland. Participating schools could give preference in admission on the basis that the student s parents were affiliated with any organization that provides financial support to the school, but could not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background. The program does not place restrictions on the use of the funds; monies received through the program could apparently be used by the schools to further a religious mandate, and not just secular purposes. As an alternative to the voucher program, parents may also accept tutorial aid to obtain special help for students opting to remain in the Cleveland schools. Vouchers and tutorial aid are only one aspect of Ohio s school choice program; the Cleveland school district also offers parents the choice to send their children to a community or magnet school, which are secular, public schools within the city limits of Cleveland, but operate independently of traditional Cleveland schools. The program went into effect in the school year. Over the years, none of the surrounding public school districts has chosen to participate in the program, and 82 percent of the private schools that participated were sectarian. However, the ratio of secular to sectarian private schools participating in the voucher program does not appear to be disproportionate, since 81 percent of the private schools in Ohio are religious schools. Of the participating religious schools, most were pervasively sectarian they wove religion into traditional courses of study, mandated participation in religious services, and required students to take religious courses. Most students in the voucher program attended these schools. In the school year, 96 percent of the students participating in the voucher program chose to attend sectarian schools, up from 78 percent in the school year. However, when including the population of students participating in other aspects of Ohio s school choice program by opting to attend a community or magnet school, the number of students attending a sectarian schools drops from 96 to 20 percent. Discussion. When public dollars flow from public to religious coffers, as they do when vouchers are used by parents for religious schools, it may violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment against the States, directing them to make no law respecting an establishment of religion. 2 In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court set forth the following test to determine whether a statute withstands constitutional scrutiny: (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the statute must not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion. 3 In Agostini v. Felton, a case involving direct aid to religious schools, the Court folded the second and third prongs of the test together, since both inquiries largely rely on the same evidence, and the degree of entanglement has implications for whether a 2 U.S. CONST. amend I. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)(applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment against the States) U.S. 602 (1971).
4 CRS-3 statute advances or inhibits religion. 4 While the Court has been divided on the utility of this test in cases of direct governmental aid, the Court has been consistent in cases involving true private choice programs or indirect aid, and has affirmed the use of this test in those cases, particularly the primary effects prong. 5 The Ohio voucher program may result in indirect aid of religion, since public dollars may flow from state to religious coffers through private citizens an independent choice, not a governmental decree, determines whether a religious school receives public aid. As in most indirect aid cases, the primary question posed by Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is how to apply the primary effects prong. In other indirect aid cases, the Court has reached mixed results. In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, the Court struck down a New York tuition subsidy program for low-income students in private elementary and secondary schools. 6 The program failed the Lemon test s second prong, since it was confined to children attending private schools, most of those schools (85-90%) were pervasively sectarian, and, as a consequence, the programs had a primary purpose and effect of subsidizing such schools. 7 Moreover, the use of the aid was not restricted; it could be used by participating schools to further their religious mandate. On the other hand, the Court has upheld voucher and tax programs that benefit religious schools. In Mueller v. Allen, the Court upheld a program that allowed parents of elementary and secondary school children to deduct educational expenses from their state taxes, which would include deductions of tuition payments to sectarian schools. 8 In Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, the Court upheld a vocational rehabilitation program that allowed a blind student to attend a Bible college. 9 In upholding the programs, the Court stressed that they were designed as general welfare programs, and did not specifically aim to provide aid to religious organizations. Instead, they distributed funds to religious organizations based on religiously neutral criteria and only as a result of the independent choices of the individual beneficiaries. 10 The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio program was closer to Nyquist than Mueller or Witters, and, accordingly, held it unconstitutional. 11 Given that no public school and few secular private schools opted to participate, Ohio s program created an incentive for parents to send their children to religiously affiliated schools, the court found. Accordingly, the choice the program provided was illusory and clearly ha[d] the impermissible effect of promoting sectarian schools, the court held. 12 The low level scholarship amount, the court found, was the program s primary flaw, since it essentially locked out most private secular schools from participating, but encouraged sectarian 4 Zelman, 536 U.S., slip op. at 7 (O Connor, J., concurring), citing, 521 U.S. 203 (1997). 5 Zelman, 536 U.S., slip op. at 7 (Opinion of the Court) U.S. 756 (1973). 7 See also Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973) U.S. 388 (1983) U.S. 481 (1986). 10 See also Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993) F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000). 12 Id. at 960.
5 CRS-4 schools to participate, since they have low tuition rates. There is no neutral aid when that aid principally flows to religious institutions; nor is there truly private choice when available choices resulting from the program design are predominately religious, the court concluded. 13 Reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the Ohio program was closer to Mueller and Witters than Nyquist. According to the five Justice majority, this result did not signal a major departure from [the] Court s prior Establishment jurisprudence, even though the majority never cited the Lemon test. 14 As there was no dispute that the voucher program was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children, the only question before the Court was whether the program had the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. 15 Where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct governmental aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause. 16 Under such programs, the Court found that the incidental advancement or endorsement of religion through the use of public dollars is reasonably attributable to the individual decision-maker, not to the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits. 17 Empirical data suggesting that the Ohio voucher program had the primary effect of advancing religion did not significantly influence the Court s analysis. The Court attached no constitutional significance to the fact the majority of participating private schools were religious and found it irrelevant that most parents receiving vouchers chose to use them at a religious school, since the Court could perceive no principled standards by which such statistical evidence might be evaluated. 18 For instance, statistics indicate that 96 percent of the students participating in the voucher program chose to attend sectarian schools, up from 78 percent in the school year. However, when including the population of students participating in other aspects of Ohio s school choice program (e.g., those opting to attend a community or magnet school), the number of students attending a sectarian schools drops from 96 to 20 percent. The Court found that it would be arbitrary to only sample students participating in the voucher program and exclude students attending community or magnet schools. Thus, the Court de-emphasized the significance of empirical data in evaluating whether the program had the primary effect of advancing religion. 13 Id. at Zelman, 536 U.S. at, slip op. at 7 (O Connor, J., concurring). 15 Zelman, 536 U.S. at, slip op. at 7 (Opinion of the Court). 16 Id. at, slip op. at Id. 18 Id. at, slip op. at 17 (Opinion to the Court).
6 CRS-5 Instead, the Court focused on the formal qualities of the voucher program, and held that it was a program of true private choice. 19 The Court found that the program was entirely neutral with respect to religion, since it provided aid to a wide spectrum of individuals, who were defined only by financial need and residence, and made no reference to religion as a condition for participation in the program. Moreover, it found that there were no financial incentives that skewed the program toward religious schools. 20 The Court also found that the program permitted qualifying individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. 21 Specifically, parents may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with publicly funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose a nonreligious school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school. 22 Accordingly, the Court concluded that the principal or primary effect of the voucher program neither advanced nor inhibited religion, and held that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause. Four dissenting justices emphasized that under existing precedent no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 23 Under this general rule, the dissent would have held the voucher program unconstitutional, since the overwhelming proportion of large appropriations for voucher money must be spent on religious schools, [and, therefore, will] pay for eligible students instruction not only in secular subjects but in religion as well The dissent critiqued the majority opinion as a dramatic departure from basic Establishment Clause principle Id. at, slip op. at 21 (Opinion of the Court). 20 Id. at, slip op. at 12 (Opinion of the Court). 21 Id. at, slip op. at 21 (Opinion of the Court). 22 Id. at, slip op. at 14 (Opinion of the Court). 23 Id. at, slip op. at 2 (Souter, J., dissenting.), quoting Everson, 330 U.S. at 16 (1947). 24 Zelman 536 U.S. at, slip op. at 3 (Souter, J., dissenting). 25 Id. at, slip op. at 34 (Souter, J., dissenting).
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 11-29-2010 The Law of Church and State: Public Aid to Sectarian Schools Cynthia Brougher Congressional Research
INFORMATION BRIEF Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Lisa Larson, Legislative Analyst 651-296-8036 September 2002 School Vouchers In Zelman
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1, 2010 State Aid to Private Schools: A Question of Separation of Church and State Fred C. Lunenburg Sam Houston State University ABSTRACT Historically, the Supreme Court generally has
INDIRECT FUNDING OF SECTARIAN SCHOOLS: A DISCUSSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAMS UNDER FEDERAL AND NEW MEXICO LAW AFTER ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS B. DOUGLAS WOOD' I. INTRODUCTION
When Lemons Are Not Enough: An Analysis of the Lemon Test In Establishment Clause Cases Mariam Rahman Education Law and Policy: Dean Kaufman The Lemon Test, established by Chief Justice Warren Burger in
No. 466 February 4, 2003 True Private Choice A Practical Guide to School Choice after Zelman v. Simmons-Harris by Marie Gryphon Executive Summary Until recently, advocates of school choice faced a formidable
A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC INTEREST RELIGIOUS CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW FIRM 1055 Maitland Center Cmns. Second Floor Maitland, Florida 32751 Tel: 800 671 1776 Fax: 407 875 0770 www.lc.org 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W. Suite
INFORMATION BRIEF Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Nina Manzi, Legislative Analyst, 651-296-5204 Lisa Larson, Attorney/Legislative Analyst,
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATHLEEN M. WINN, an Arizona taxpayer; DIANE WOLFTHAL, an Arizona taxpayer; MAURICE WOLFTHAL, an Arizona taxpayer LYNN HOFFMAN, an Arizona
Charter Schools Program Title V, Part B Non-Regulatory Guidance July, 2004 Non-Regulatory Guidance Title V, Part B Charter Schools Program The Charter Schools Program CSP) was authorized in October 1994,
AP UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS 2007 SCORING GUIDELINES Question 2 6 points Part (a): 1 point One point is earned for correctly identifying the establishment clause as the First Amendment clause
RELIGION AND THE COURTS: THE PILLARS OF CHURCH-STATE LAW Shifting Boundaries: The Establishment Clause and Government Funding of Religious Schools and Other Faith-Based Organizations MAY 2009 The debate
Authority of FEMA to Provide Disaster Assistance to Seattle Hebrew Academy The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 and its implementing regulations permit the Federal Emergency
Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung Jennifer Marshall An Overview of Parental Choice in Education in the United States OccasionalPaper 15 Imprint: Published by The Liberal Institute of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation
RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BACKGROUND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN AMERICA & OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS Since its founding in 1913, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been guided by its mandate of combating bigotry,
THE JOSIAH BARTLETT Center for PUBLIC POLICY The Constitutionality of School Choice in New Hampshire An Analysis By The Honorable Charles G. Douglas, III Former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Historical
NO. 15-577 In the Supreme Court of the United States TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., Petitioner, v. SARA PARKER PAULEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United
Education Administrator Department of Education Mike Maher 465-3603 Deputy Commissioner Department of Education Enrollment of private and home school students in public schools Janice Gregg Levy Assistant
Impact of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education on Affirmative Action in Higher Education 1 The Supreme Court on June
ARE WE HEADED FOR A NEW ERA IN RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION?: A CLOSER LOOK AT LOCKE V. DAVEY by Allison C. Bizzano* The Supreme Court s recent ruling in Locke v. Davey permitted the State of Washington to
RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: FISHER V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws.
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 9-1-1984 A Breach in the Impregnable Wall: An Analysis of Tuition Tax Credits and the Establishment Clause Juan C.
2 Chapter 2: ORGANIZATION OF EDUCATION IN COLORADO The laws under which Colorado s 178 school districts have been organized permit local electors to make some variations in the structure of the board such
Social Policy: Primary and Secondary Education State Board and Department of Education (Adopted January 1983) 1. The League of Women Voters of Ohio supports the continuation of a State Board of Education
ETHAN W. BLEVINS, Mont. State Bar No. 37415893 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98004 email@example.com Telephone: (425) 576-0484 Facsimile: (425) 576-9565 JOSHUA P. THOMPSON, Cal.
The Pledge of Allegiance: Under God is Under Scrutiny Arsineh Arakel * I. INTRODUCTION: THE "UNDER GOD" PHRASE This article examines whether the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-6023 In re: Paul Roma Dmitruk, also known as Pavel Roma Dmitruk, As surety for DPR Auto Repair llllllllllllllllllllldebtor ------------------------------
SCHOOL LAW STUDY GUIDE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE MICHAEL D. EISNER COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & POLICY STUDIES US CONSTITUTION General Welfare Clause is found in the preamble
SCHOOL LAW STUDY GUIDE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE MICHAEL D. EISNER COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & POLICY STUDIES US CONSTITUTION General Welfare Clause is found in the preamble
Members Only AN INFORMATIONAL BRIEF PREPARED FOR MEMBERS OF THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF Transportation of Students Volume 127 Issue 6 PREPARED BY: JOHN RAU, LSC
BIBLE YOUTH GROUP EXCLUDED FROM SCHOOL OPEN FOR COMMUNITY USE James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2001 James C. Kozlowski In the Good News opinion described herein, the Supreme Court of the United States considered
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO RELIGION? Alexa Vouros* I. INTRODUCTION Courts have not been consistent in deciding whether students Establishment Clause and Free Exercise rights are violated with the enactment
School Choice and State Constitutions School Choice and State Constitutions April 2007 Ifornstitute Justice 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 682-9320 www.ij.org 1129 20th Street NW,
The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 58, Issue 3 (1997) 1997 The Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program:
No. 07-1247 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant JUDY P. WEAVER, et al., Defendants-Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
Center for Education in Law and Democracy Teacher s Directions Does the Establishment Clause Permit Under God in the Pledge? Rationale and Overview of Lesson: On March 24, 2004, the Supreme Court heard
THE SPECIAL NEEDS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ACT AS PASSED BY THE EDUCATION TASK FORCE Summary: The Special Needs Scholarship Program provides special needs students with the option to attend the public or non-public
IDEA Does Not Require Baseline Data in IEP s August 2010 Inside This Issue: IDEA Does Not Require Baseline Data in IEP s 1 New Jersey Court Upholds First Amendment over School Policy 2 District Court Upholds
The Community College and Undocumented Students Pete Kushibab General Counsel Maricopa County Community College District Tempe, Arizona Among the traits that most profoundly distinguish American community
FEATURE All materials in this journal subject to copyright by the American Library Association Minors First Amendment Rights: CIPA ANd School libraries 16 Knowledge Quest Intellectual Freedom Online Volume
Search GO LOGIN LOGOUT HOME JOIN ALEC CONTACT ABOUT MEMBERS EVENTS & MEETINGS MODEL LEGISLATION TASK FORCES ALEC INITIATIVES PUBLICATIONS NEWS Summary THE GREAT SCHOOLS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM ACT (Scholarship
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ENACTING THE FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT, WHOSE STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVISION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ON A PER VIOLATION BASIS, CONGRESS ACTED WITHIN THE
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345 DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a GEICO; ANGELO CARTER; CHARLES CARTER On Appeal
Education Tax Credits in North Carolina Innovation in Education A POLICY REPORT BY THE NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATION ALLIANCE Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary A 2 Chapter 1: What Are Education Tax Credits?
CLIENT MEMORANDUM In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review February 5, 2015 AUTHORS Michael W. Johnson Tara L. Thieme THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 36072 RUTH A. CREPS, Claimant-Appellant, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. Boise, June 2010 Term 2010 Opinion No. 72 Filed: June 28, 2010 Stephen
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN 2009: A BASELINE FOR MEASURING CHANGE DANIEL R. RAY, J.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 493 II. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE HISTORY... 495 III. THE LEMON TEST, AS MODIFIED...
GEORGE JEPSEN ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut May 16, 2011 The Honorable Howard F. Pitkin Department of Banking 260
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY V. WEAVER: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE PERVASIVELY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE INTRODUCTION The Tenth Circuit s recent decision in Colorado
No. 03-50538 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHRISTIAN M. RANDOLPH, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION, (MARY) ESTER DIAZ, LARRY ANDERSON, ELIZABETH GREGOWICZ,
The Education Savings Account Act Summary The Education Savings Account Act allows parents to use the funds that would have been allocated to their child at their resident school district for an education
If you have questions, please contact your regular Groom attorney or one of the attorneys listed below: Jon W. Breyfogle firstname.lastname@example.org (202) 861-6641 Lisa M. Campbell email@example.com (202) 861-6612
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 16 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 14 PHILIP S. LOTT (5750) STANFORD E. PURSER (13440) Assistant Utah Attorneys General JOHN E. SWALLOW (5802) Utah Attorney General 160 East 300
School Choice: Legal Obstacles to Expanded Educational Opportunities Clint Bolick- Alliance for School Choice PEPG 04-11 Preliminary draft Please do not cite without permission Prepared for the conference:
Admission Lotteries: The Ins and Outs Carol Aust Director of Operations and Partnership Development Public Charter School Alliance of South Carolina 1 How can we make sure Charters are casting a wide net?
Education Law Center Pre-K Policy Brief Series INTEGRATING FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS INTO STATE-FUNDED PRE-K PROGRAMS: RESOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT June 2010 This policy brief addresses federal and
The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy New Federal Policies on Grants for Building Aid for Houses of Worship A Legal Analysis By Ira C. Lupu and Robert Tuttle George Washington University
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND SCHOOL: GUIDANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS USING RELIGIOUS FACILITIES By Lisa Scruggs TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 SECTION I Introduction 8 SECTION II Preserving Public
Section 42.11. Charter Schools Incentive Fund. A. There is hereby created in the State Treasury a fund to be designated the Charter Schools Incentive Fund. The fund shall be a continuing fund, not subject
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A13-1388 Court of Appeals Stras, J. State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, Respondent, vs. Filed: October 7, 2015 Office of Appellate Courts Integrity
Touro Law Review Volume 17 Number 1 Supreme Court and Local Government Law: 1999-2000 Term & New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation Article 4 March 2016 United States Court of Appeals
November 3, 1999 No. 8269 This opinion is issued in response to a question from Nancy Ellison, Deputy Commissioner of the Insurance Division of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. QUESTION
The Supreme Court s ruling on the Affordable Care Act A review of the decision and its impact on Ohio July, 2012 Introduction On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ( Court ) issued an opinion
STATE OF INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THIRD FLOOR STATE HOUSE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204 Bruce Borders 7935 N State Road 59 Jasonville, IN 47438 Email: H45@in.gov Statehouse: 1-800-382-9841 Website:
EAGLES TEN COMMANDMENTS PARK MONUMENT FAILS LEMON TEST James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2004 James C. Kozlowski Prior to the Plattsmouth opinion described herein, at least four federal appeals courts and
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 121065-U Order filed
Policy Charter Schools and Students with Learning Disabilities www.ld.org Today charter schools are being viewed as a critical piece of this nation s federal education reform agenda. Converting persistently
AN OVERVIEW OF ARKANSAS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT LAW Tax increment financing districts, otherwise known as "redevelopment" or "TIF" districts, are used in many states as an economic development
Nonstatutory Insiders Under Bankruptcy Code 101(31): An Arm s-length Test Is Not a Proper Test Gr a n t L. Ca rt w r i g h t On July 15, 2008, the Tenth Circuit in In re U.S. Medical, Inc. became one of
Chapter 6 The Constitution and Business Laws that govern business have their origin in the lawmaking authority granted by the federal constitution. The Constitutional Powers of Government The Constitution
776 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section 706. General Repeal. Al1 other acts and parts of acts are repealed in so far as they are inconsistent herewith. APPROVED The 17th day of July, A. D. 1961. The County Code.
Brief to the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee Concerning Bill 45 The Responsible Choices for Growth and Accountability Act Tax Credit for Private School Tuition By the Elementary Teachers Federation
Case 1:07-cv-00320-JFM Document 38 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL * OF BALTIMORE, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * Civil No. JFM
Case: 08-56320 02/02/2009 Page: 1 of 5 DktEntry: 6793256 Case No. 08-56320 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
CASE 0:10-cv-02938-DWF-JSM Document 102 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc.; The Taxpayers League of Minnesota; and
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. In exchange for the commitment between the(agency Name), hereinafter referred to as the Agency, and(complainant name), hereinafter referred to as the Complainant, collectively referred
Case 1:11-cv-01314-RC Document 27 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Plaintiff, v. Civil
Mayor s Preschool Plan FAQ The Mayor s Preschool Plan What is the Mayor s Preschool Plan? o In July 2014, Mayor Ballard announced the Mayor s Preschool Plan as part of his Education and Public Safety initiative
Policy Report No. 15 March 2003 Michigan s Role in Monitoring Home Schools Tara Donahue, Research Analyst David N. Plank, Co-Director The Education Policy Center at MSU If you live in Michigan, chances
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Index No.: 115.02-00 Number: 199923029 Release Date: 6/11/1999 CC:DOM:FI&P:1 - PLR-116624-98 March 11, 1999 LEGEND: Authority = State A = Year 1 = County = Date 1 = Program = Date
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit YVONNE MURPHY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee 2015-5134 Appeal from the
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Barbara Jones Deborah Caldwell-Stone Freedom to Read Foundation Theresa Chmara General Counsel DATE: July, 2012 SUBJECT: Library Internet Filtering Update The Freedom to Read Foundation
Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program Description of Program The Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program is a central part of the A+ educational reform package which was signed into law in June, 1999.
Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,
Issuance of a Preferred Stock Dividend by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is authorized, under 12 U S.C. 1455(0.to *ssue a dividend of preferred stock
Ken Cuccinelli s K-12 Education Plan Putting Our Kids First Ken Cuccinelli believes all of Virginia s children regardless of the color of their skin, where they live or how much money their parents make
[Cite as State v. Brown, 142 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-486.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BROWN, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SHIPLEY, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. MCCLOUDE,