Recent Decisions- SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Article excerpt

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court.

DOCKET NO: 07-967

NAME: Horton v. Commn. on Teacher Credentialing

DATE: Mar. 24, 2008

CITATION: - S.Ct. -, 76 U.S.L.W. 3510 (2008)

DOCKET NO: 07-691

NAME: Dale v. Stephens Co., Ga. Sch. Dist.

DATE: Feb 25, 2008

CITATION: 128 S.Ct. 1446 (2008)

DOCKET NO: 07-692

NAME: Dale v. Stephens Co., Ga. Sch. Dist.

DATE: Feb 25, 2008

CITATION: 128 S.Ct. 1446 (2008)

Decisions with published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO: 07-541

NAME: Alexandria City Sch. Bd. v. A.K.

DATE: Jan. 22, 2008

CITATION: 128 S.Ct. 1123 (2008)

Parents of special needs child sued school board for failure to provide free appropriate education when IEP team failed to identify school that could meet his needs and denied payment for continued attendance at private school. Child had been in public school, but was removed due to taunting and placed in private school in another state pursuant to settlement with school district. At beginning of 04-05 year, school district decided child should be placed in unspecified local day school. School district sent out applications to local day schools. Three of five schools indicated they could not provide education to child, two others were ruled out by experts familiar with child's condition. Parents sought to have child returned to out of state school and sought reimbursement. School district denied reimbursement. Parents sued. District court granted summary judgment. Parents appealed. Held: Because IEP did not identify particular school, it was not reasonably calculated to enable child to receive free appropriate public education. Although school districts are not always required to identify particular schools, where parents have expressed doubt as to whether local school exists that can provide appropriate education, a school must be identified. A.K. v. Alexandria City Sch. Bd., 484 F.3d 672 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1123 (2008)

DOCKET NO: 07-783

NAME: Novato Unified Sch. Dist. v. Smith

DATE: Feb. 19, 2008

CITATION: 128 S.Ct. 1256 (2008)

Father of high school student sued school district over school's response to editorial written by student alleging violation of First Amendment, California Constitution, and California Educational Code. Student wrote editorial for high school paper titled "Immigration" which contained racially inflammatory statements. After publication, parents of Latino students complained. Principal contacted superintendent who instructed principal to collect and destroy remaining copies of paper. Principal and superintendent sent letters to all parents indicating that editorial should not have been printed. For a later issue of paper, student submitted editorial called "Reverse Racism." Editorial was held for publication in later issue so counter-viewpoint piece could also be published. Father and student sued. District court found for school district. Father and student appealed. Held: Editorial was protected speech under First Amendment and California law and school's action violated student's free speech rights. Portion of opinion relating to school's action for "Immigration" was published, while portion of opinion relating to "Reverse Racism" was not. Court found that speech intended to communicate ideas, no matter how provocative, may not be prohibited due to reactions by persons hearing or reading speech. Student's intent was modification of immigration laws, not inciting other students to violence or disrupting operation of school. While school's removing of paper and holding meetings with parents or Latino children did not violate free speech, school's letter to parents did violate student's free speech rights. Smith v. Novato Unified Sch. Dist., 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 508 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 1256 (2008)

DOCKET NO: 07-825

NAME: Blanchard v. …