Landmark Supreme Court Cases Shaping Education in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of education through its interpretation of the Constitution. These landmark cases have addressed critical issues ranging from desegregation and student rights to religious expression and funding equity. This article explores key Supreme Court cases that have significantly impacted education, influencing policy and practice in schools across the nation.

Desegregation and Equal Protection

The fight for equal access to education has been a long and arduous one, with the Supreme Court often serving as a crucial battleground.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

This landmark case stands as a cornerstone in the struggle against racial segregation in schools. Overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court unanimously declared that segregation in public schools was inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) challenged the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system, leading to this monumental decision. Brown v. Board of Education made de jure segregation, or segregation by law, illegal in public schools.

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968)

Despite the Brown decision, many school districts continued to experience de facto segregation. This case addressed the inadequacy of "freedom of choice" plans, which allowed students to choose their school but failed to achieve meaningful integration. The Court ruled that school districts had an affirmative duty to eliminate segregation "root and branch."

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

This case addressed the use of busing as a tool for integrating public schools. A district court had ordered busing to integrate the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district. The Supreme Court upheld the district court's order, recognizing busing as a legitimate means of achieving desegregation.

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado (1973)

This case extended the principles of Brown to school districts with de facto segregation, even in the absence of explicit segregation laws. The Court held that if a significant portion of a school district was intentionally segregated, the entire district was subject to desegregation remedies.

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

This case placed limits on the scope of desegregation remedies. A district court had ordered cross-district busing to integrate a segregated Detroit school district, involving neighboring districts that were not de jure segregated. The Supreme Court overturned the order, holding that inter-district remedies were only permissible when there was evidence of inter-district segregation.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

This case challenged the use of race as a factor in student assignment plans designed to promote diversity. The school districts normally allowed students to choose which school they attended, unless a school was overenrolled. The Court ruled that these plans were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race.

School Finance and Equity

The issue of equitable funding for public schools has been a persistent concern, with numerous lawsuits challenging disparities in school finance systems.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Parents of students in a Texas school district argued that the school finance system in Texas, which relied on local property tax for funding beyond that provided by the state, disadvantaged the children whose districts were located in poorer areas. The Supreme Court upheld the Texas school finance system, finding that it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Serrano v. Priest (1971)

Students of Los Angeles County public schools and their families argued that the California school finance system, which relied heavily on local property tax, disadvantaged the students in districts with lower income.

Robinson v. Cahill (1973)

The New York school finance system also relied on local property tax, and several districts with low funding challenged the system.

Abbott v. Burke

For over 40 years, ELC has served as legal counsel for the plaintiff-class of over 300,000 school-aged children in 31 low-wealth, urban school districts in New Jersey. The Abbott rulings directed implementation of a comprehensive set of improvements, including adequate K-12 foundational funding, universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-old children and funding for supplemental or at-risk programs.

Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989)

Plaintiffs argued that the Kentucky school finance system was inequitable and inadequate.

DeRolph v. State (1997)

Ohio’s school finance system, which relied heavily on local property tax and contributed to disparities between wealthier and poorer school districts, was found unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Read also: Becoming a Neonatal Nurse

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity argued that New York’s school finance system was unconstitutional because it failed to provide adequate funding to public schools, thus denying students access to the constitutionally-guaranteed right to a basic education.

Sheff v. O’Neill

The 2008 settlement of the Sheff v. O’Neill case was one of several settlements following a 1996 hearing. Students in Hartford, Connecticut argued that the city’s schools were segregated and that minority students were not receiving the same resources as white students. District lines had been drawn such that students in the city were separated from students in the suburbs. The Connecticut Supreme Court found the districting unconstitutional and ordered the state to remedy the segregation.

Student Rights and Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has also addressed the extent to which students retain their constitutional rights within the school environment.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Court held that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The Court recognized that students have a right to freedom of expression, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1986)

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. The Court ruled that school officials could prohibit lewd or indecent speech that is inconsistent with the school's educational mission.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court held that school officials have broad authority to censor student speech in school-sponsored activities, such as school newspapers, as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech.

Religion and Public Schools

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government entities, including public schools, from establishing or endorsing a religion. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice their religion freely. The Supreme Court has navigated the tension between these two clauses in the context of education.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Court ruled that mandatory prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, even if the prayer is nondenominational and students can opt out. The Court reasoned that such prayer constitutes an endorsement of religion by the state.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

This case addressed the constitutionality of mandatory Bible readings in public schools. The Court ruled that such readings violate the Establishment Clause.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that student-led prayer at school-sponsored events is unconstitutional because it constitutes a government endorsement of religion.

Carson v. Makin

The Court held in Carson v. Makin that limiting Maine’s tuition assistance program to “nonsectarian” only schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. In Maine, because less than half of the school districts offer secondary education, the state created a tuition assistance program for students to enroll in private secondary schools. To receive the tuition directly from the state, schools had to be “nonsectarian.” Here, the Court agreed with the students and parents who chose to enroll in a private religious school by finding that Maine could not provide “tuition” to private schools that are not religious without also providing such assistance to private religious schools. This decision impacts school funding programs such as vouchers that provide tuition reimbursements from states to private schools.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

The Court ruled that the assistant football coach at Bremerton High School had a constitutional right to engage in a personal, quiet prayer at the 50-yard line right after high school football games. The Court explained that the coach sufficiently showed that his desire to give thanks through prayer after the game on the 50-yard line was sincere and the district’s actions prohibiting him doing so were unconstitutional since the coach was found to be acting as a private citizen and not a district employee during his prayer. The Court also held that the district’s policy prohibiting the coach’s conduct was not a “neutral” policy, but was directed specifically toward religion, which violated the coach’s overlapping First Amendment rights of free speech and religious expression. As to the district’s argument that allowing the coach’s prayers violated the Establishment Clause, the Court, in line with some of its prior decisions, overturned the long-standing precedent, which the district had followed, regarding the Establishment Clause as set forth in 1971 in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Court determined that the Lemon Test, was too “ambitious, abstract, and ahistorical.” The Court created a test based on “original meaning and history of the Constitution.” In reviewing the actions by a public agency, courts are now to “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Based on this test, the Court found that the coach’s private and quiet prayer at the 50-yard line, surrounded by players and coaches from the other team and by members of the public who joined as he was praying, was not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Due Process and Student Discipline

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law, which includes fair procedures for students facing disciplinary action.

Goss v. Lopez (1975)

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Court held that students facing suspension from public school have a right to due process, including notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Court held that school officials do not need a warrant to search students, but they must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or that school rules have been violated.

Rights of Students with Disabilities

Federal laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), guarantee certain rights and protections for students with disabilities. The Supreme Court has played a role in interpreting these laws.

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)

A New York public school refused to provide a sign-language interpreter for a deaf student, claiming that her academic performance and progress demonstrated that she did not need one. The student’s parents argued that the school denied her access to education at a level equal to that of her peers. The Court found that the school was providing the child with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), guaranteed to children with disabilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, later revised and now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)).

Honig v. Doe (1988)

The EHA (now IDEA) contains a “stay-put” clause, which states that, in cases where a school wishes to take disciplinary action against a student with disabilities, the school cannot remove the student from the program set in that student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) until the new plan has been agreed upon by the parents. A student with an IEP who had been threatened with expulsion brought suit against his school for violating the stay-put clause. The Supreme Court confirmed that schools must adhere to the stay-put clause, although they can take other disciplinary actions (e.g. suspension).

Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009)

A student with learning disabilities switched from a public school to a private school after the public school failed to meet his needs as a student (a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE). A hearing officer ordered that the public school district reimburse the student for the private school expenses. However, the student had not been receiving special education at the public school.

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth

Shortly after the PARC v. Commonwealth decision, several children challenged the District of Columbia public schools in court for both expelling and refusing admission to disabled students. The schools argued that they did not have the funding or resources to provide an education to disabled children.

Other Notable Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements.

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18.

Veronia School District v. Acton (1995)

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities.

Plyler v. Doe

Force v. Pierce County

Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department

Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District

A female high school student was dismissed from her school’s National Honor Society (NHS) chapter upon discovery that she was pregnant. The NHS faculty council cited the student’s engaging in premarital sex as the reason for her dismissal, claiming that this behavior was inconsistent with the values expected of NHS members. The district court found no violation of Title IX.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools

Chipman v. Grant County School District

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

Non-English-speaking Chinese-American students in San Francisco claimed that they were being denied equal protection by the school system’s failure to provide additional English language instruction. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, it did so by relying on Section 601 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act rather than the Equal Protection Clause; Section 601 protects against discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools.

Recent and Ongoing Legal Challenges

The legal landscape of education continues to evolve, with new cases addressing contemporary challenges.

D.R. v. Michigan Department of Education

ELC, the private law firm White & Case, and local partner, the ACLU of Michigan, brought suit against the Michigan Department of Education, Flint Community Schools, and the Genesee Intermediate School District on behalf of thousands of parents and students of Flint, Michigan.

Cortes v. NYSER

ELC joined Michael Rebell and Morgan Lewis & Bockius in the NYSER lawsuit to compel New York State to fulfill its constitutional obligation to adequately fund the public schools in the wake of the landmark Campaign for Fiscal Equity rulings.

Lopez v. New Jersey

In re Renewal Application of TEAM Academy Charter School

ELC brought this case on behalf of the Abbott v. Burke plaintiff-class students in Newark, New Jersey, to challenge the New Jersey Department of Education’s approval of the renewal of the charter of TEAM Academy Charter School.

tags: #supreme #court #cases #education