Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District

Last updated
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 24, 1993
Decided June 18, 1993
Full case nameZobrest et al. v. Catalina Foothills School District
Docket no. 92-94
Citations509 U.S. 1 ( more )
113 S. Ct. 2462; 125 L. Ed. 2d 1
Case history
Prior963 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1989)
Holding
A school must continue to provide an interpreter under the Individuals with Disabilities Act even if the child elects to attend a religious school, in so which it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by White, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
DissentBlackmun, joined by Souter (in full); Stevens, O'Connor (Part I)
DissentO'Connor, joined by Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.   § 1400 et seq.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Contents

Background

A deaf child and his parents sued the Catalina Foothills Unified School District in Arizona because the district refused to provide a sign language interpreter for the child after he transferred from a public school to Salpointe Catholic High School, a parochial school. Plaintiffs challenged the refusal to provide an interpreter on a variety of constitutional and statutory grounds, including the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), [1] its Arizona counterpart, [2] an IDEA regulation, [3] the Arizona Constitution, [4] and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A federal district court held, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that as the interpreter "would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation", [5] providing one at government expense would violate the Establishment Clause.

Opinion of the court

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reached the same issue, but reversed on the merits, finding that if it provided an interpreter the school district would not violate the Establishment Clause. [6] The Court held only that the Establishment Clause does not bar the school district from furnishing an interpreter in a parochial school. Lower federal courts will now have to determine whether the Zobrests are entitled to reimbursement for the interpreter's expenses.

In arguing its case before the lower courts, the school district raised other defenses in addition to the Establishment Clause bar. The district argued that the provision of an interpreter violated the Arizona Constitution, was not required by federal statute (IDEA) or regulation, and was, in fact, precluded under a federal funding regulation promulgated under the IDEA. The Court declined to address these "unrelated" issues because the parties pressed only the federal constitutional issue at both the appellate level and the summary judgment stage of the district court proceedings. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, recognized the validity of the "prudential rule of avoiding constitutional questions"; however, it acknowledged that the Court, on appeal, is presented with the "entire case," including "'nonconstitutional questions actually decided by the lower court as well as nonconstitutional grounds presented to, but not passed on, by the lower court.'" [5]

In the Zobrest litigation, however, the Court found it significant that only the First Amendment questions—rather than nonconstitutional grounds—were "pressed" before the Ninth Circuit and that, even before the district court, "the parties chose to litigate the case on the federal constitutional issues alone." [7] The Court concluded: "Given this posture of the case, we think the prudential rule of avoiding constitutional questions has no application. The fact that there may be buried in the record a nonconstitutional ground for decision is not by itself enough to invoke this rule." [8] The Court then proceeded directly to the First Amendment issue, without considering any other grounds for the decision.

Dissent

The four dissenters—Justices Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens—accused the Zobrest majority of "unnecessarily address[ing] an important constitutional issue, [and] disregarding longstanding principles of constitutional adjudication." [9] The dissent argued that resolution of the constitutional issue was not necessary because the Court could have remanded the case for consideration of alternative grounds of resolution. The lower courts then could have construed the IDEA so as not to require an interpreter for a parochial student so long as the school district provided an interpreter in a public school which the child could attend. The majority, however, merely held that governmental provision of an interpreter did not establish religion and that the Establishment Clause did not bar provision of an interpreter. In further proceedings, the lower courts may determine—despite the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause ruling—that the IDEA does not require provision of an interpreter in a parochial school when one is available in a public school in the district.

The parties deliberately did not brief or argue the "weighty" nonconstitutional issues because, according to the dissent, they wanted a ruling on the Establishment Clause question. The dissenters would have heeded the avoidance doctrine by vacating and remanding the case for consideration of the nonconstitutional questions, despite the parties' failure to brief these issues: "The obligation to avoid unnecessary adjudication of constitutional questions does not depend upon the parties' litigation strategy, but rather is a 'self-imposed limitation on the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction [that] has an importance to the institution that transcends the significance of particular controversies.'" [10] The dissent asserted that the avoidance doctrine is the most "deeply rooted" doctrine of constitutional adjudication. [9] The doctrine amounts to a "fundamental rule of judicial restraint," which has received the sanction of time and experience. [11] The dissent imbued the avoidance doctrine with constitutional weight by relying on earlier Supreme Court precedent relating the avoidance doctrine to the case or controversy requirement. The dissenters also likened it to the "policy against entertaining political questions." Despite those constitutional linkages, however, the avoidance doctrine is most commonly classified as a prudential rule of judicial self-restraint.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political question</span> Legal doctrine of political matters justiciability

In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mootness</span> Legal term on the status of a matter

The terms moot, mootness and moot point are used in both in English and American law, although with different meanings.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Prior to this decision, the clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a Supreme Court case which held that the United States Congress could set voting age requirements for federal elections but not for local or state elections. The case also upheld Congress's nationwide prohibition on literacy tests and similar "tests or devices" used as voting qualifications as defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 requiring all states to register citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 as voters. The state of Oregon objected to the lower voting age, and filed suit on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional. The respondent was John Mitchell in his role as United States Attorney General.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court believes that it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the vouchers could be used for private religious schools.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of two recurring Christmas and Hanukkah holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. The first, a nativity scene (crèche), was placed on the grand staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second of the holiday display in question was an 18-foot (5.5 m) public Hanukkah menorah, which was placed just outside the City-County Building next to the city's 45-foot (14 m) decorated Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. The legality of the Christmas tree display was not considered in this case.

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), was a case brought before the US Supreme Court in November 1988. The case was to test the legality of a Texas statute that exempted religious publications from paying state sales tax.

In Constitutional law, the Last Resort Rule is a largely prudential rule which gives a federal court the power to avoid a constitutional issue in some circumstances. This rule dictates that, even if all other jurisdictional and justiciability obstacles are surmounted, federal courts still must avoid a constitutional issue if there is any other ground upon which to render a final judgment. The last resort rule can function as a distinct barrier to Constitutional avoidance. It is articulated by Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".

Constitutional avoidance is a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that dictates that United States federal courts should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved without involving constitutionality. When a federal court is faced with a choice of ruling on a statutory, regulatory, or constitutional basis, the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed the lower court to decide the federal constitutional issue only as a last resort: "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936).

Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.

Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that focused on First Amendment rights and the Establishment Clause. Vincent Pinette, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in Columbus, Ohio, wanted to place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square during the 1993 Christmas season. Pinette and his fellow members of the KKK submitted their request. The advisory board originally denied this request. However, Pinette and the other members of the Ohio Chapter of the Klan fought this decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The court found in favor of the Klan and the advisory board issued the permit. The Board appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the district court. The board made one last petition to the Supreme Court where the decision was made, by a vote of seven to two, that the Klan was permitted to display the cross at the public forum.

Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court created a new doctrine of abstention.

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) was a U.S. Supreme Court case. It concerned a provision in the Missouri state constitution that required state judges to retire at the age of 70, and the court was asked to consider whether it conflicted with the 1967 federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provision was upheld, with the case being one of several Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that "ambiguous language will not be interpreted to intrude on areas of traditional state authority or important state governmental functions".

References

  1. ↑ 20 U.S.C.   §§ 1400 – 1485 (1988).
  2. ↑ ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 15-761 to -772 (1991 & Supp. 1993).
  3. ↑ 34 C.F.R. § 76.532(a)(1) (1992).
  4. ↑ ARIZ. CONST. art. II, § 12.
  5. 1 2 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1, 7 (1993).
  6. ↑ Although the deaf child had completed his high school education by the time the Supreme Court faced this issue, the controversy was not moot because his parents sought reimbursement for the cost of hiring a private interpreter while the child attended parochial school.
  7. ↑ Zobrest, 509 U.S. at 7-8.
  8. ↑ Zobrest, 509 U.S. at 8.
  9. 1 2 Zobrest, 509 U.S. at 14 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
  10. ↑ Zobrest, 509 U.S. at 16 (Blackmun, J., dissenting, quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 294 (1982)).
  11. ↑ Zobrest, 509 U.S. at 14 (Blackmun, J., dissenting, quoting Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 157 (1984)).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.