|
Samuel Alito on Education
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
|
|
|
Schools can't regulate student off-campus speech like parent
Summary by OnTheIssues: When then-14-year-old Brandi Levi did not make her school's varsity cheerleading squad, she posted on Snapchat "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything." As a result, she was suspended from the junior
varsity squad for a year. Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or
threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.
Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is
acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.
Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.
Source: 2020 SCOTUS rulings: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
, Jun 23, 2021
States funding private schools must fund parochial schools
Supreme Court delivered a major victory to parents seeking state aid for their children's religious school education. The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that states offering scholarships to students in private schools cannot exclude religious
schools from such programs.The court stopped short of requiring states to fund religious education, ruling only that programs cannot differentiate between religious and secular private schools. "A state need not subsidize private education.
But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious," Roberts wrote.
Roberts and other conservative justices said the no-aid policy had its roots in 19th-century anti-Catholic sentiment, that
blocked religious schools from receiving public funds. Amendments in 37 states were "'born of bigotry' and 'arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church,'" he wrote. "Many of its state counterparts have a similarly 'shameful pedigree.'"
Source: USA Today: Concurrence on Espinosa v. Montana, No. 18-1195
, Jun 30, 2020
Cannot ban hate speech in a school’s anti-harassment policy
Alito wrote a majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, holding that the public school district’s anti-harassment policy, prohibiting harassment based on sexual orientation among other criteria, was unconstitutionally
overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech. Alito wrote: “No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another’s ‘values’ may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination.”
Source: Wikipedia.org, “Alito, Case History”
, Nov 1, 2005
Supported free religious expression in kindergartens
Alito wrote a dissenting opinion in C.H. v. Oliva et al. (3rd Cir., 2000) arguing that the removal and subsequent replacement in “a less conspicuous spot” of a kindergartener’s
religious themed poster was, at least potentially, a violation of his right to Free Expression“
Source: Wikipedia.org, “Alito, Case History”
, Nov 1, 2005
Taxpayers can't fight AZ tax credit for religious schools.
Justice Alito joined the Court's decision on ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL v. WINN on Apr 4, 2011:
AZ law allows tax credits for contributions made to school tuition organizations (STOs). The STO then provides scholarships to students attending private schools, including religious schools. AZ taxpayers sued the state, challenging this law on Establishment [of religion] Clause grounds.
HELD: Delivered by KENNEDY, joined by ROBERTS, SCALIA, THOMAS & ALITO
The plaintiff taxpayers lack standing to sue, because no case exists that a federal court may decide. The plaintiffs cannot show injury particularized to them, as opposed to any other taxpayer. The taxpayer-plaintiffs cannot prove that the AZ legislature raised their tax burden in order to provide this tax credit. Also, since the credit takes students out of the public schools, there is a cost savings to the State. Nor can the plaintiffs show that, if a court enjoined AZ from providing the tax credit to others, state legislators would use the increased revenue to lower the plaintiffs' tax burdens. To say that Arizonans benefiting from the
tax credit are paying their state taxes to an STO assumes that all income is government property even if it has not come into the tax collector's hands.CONCURRED: SCALIA concurs; joined by THOMAS
I concur in the judgment, but would repudiate the Court's anomalous Flast v. Cohen precedent that allowed a taxpayer lawsuit to proceed. It is irreconcilable with the Court's other decisions on cases or controversies suitable for the federal courts under Article III.DISSENT: KAGAN dissents; joined by GINSBURG, BREYER & SOTOMAYOR
Tax credits can achieve the same result of supporting a religion as do payments from the treasury, and no principled distinction exists between them. Sometimes no one but a taxpayer has requisite standing to challenge government support of religion under the Establishment Clause.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-AZ-WINN argued on Nov 3, 2010
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022