Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Samuel Alito on Education

Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)


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

Other Justices on Education: Samuel Alito on other issues:
Samuel Alito
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Elena Kagan
Anthony Kennedy
John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Sonia Sotomayor
Clarence Thomas

Former Justices:
David Souter
Sandra Day O'Connor
William Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens

Party Platforms:
Democratic Platform
Green Platform
Libertarian Platform
Natural Law Platform
Reform Platform
Republican Platform
Tea Platform
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

Page last updated: Jul 11, 2013