Your search found 1454 results.

Descriptors:
Cues; Court Litigation; State Courts; Federal Courts; Search and Seizure; Student Rights; Urban Areas; Context Effect; Geographic Regions; Constitutional Law; Predictor Variables; Statistical Analysis; School Security; Legal Problems; Public Schools

Abstract:
This study examined federal and state court decisions related to student Fourth Amendment rights following the "New Jersey v. T.L.O." ruling in 1985. There has been minimal research in judicial treatment of students' Fourth Amendment rights across regions of the country and less to what extent regional rulings implicitly or explicitly transmit cues about acceptable administrative behavior. From data gathered from case law and the National Center for Education Statistics, the analysis examined the link between the characteristics of the school where the search occurred, aspects related to the search of the student, and the outcome of the case by national region. Catagorical analyses revealed a considerable regional effect associated with highly discretionary elements of Fourth Amendment law. Findings of note suggest a greater likelihood of students losing in court within urban contexts and considerable discrepancies in rulings between national regions with respect to search intrusiveness and the severity of the offense. Implications for legal decision-making and implementation are discussed. (Contains 5 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Court Litigation; Federal Courts; Constitutional Law; State Legislation; College Admission; Public Colleges; Affirmative Action; Educational Opportunities; Equal Education; Race; Nondiscriminatory Education; Minority Groups

Abstract:
The author reports on the ruling of a divided appellate court that held that the state law unconstitutionally made it harder for minorities to seek preferences than for other groups. The court struck down a voter-passed ban on the use of race-conscious admissions by Michigan's public colleges, holding that the measure had unconstitutionally put racial-minority members at a distinct legal disadvantage in seeking from public colleges the same preferential treatment that other categories of students enjoy. The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, creates a clear division among the federal courts over the issues raised, because a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this year upheld a nearly identical California ban in a ruling that the full Ninth Circuit declined to reconsider. The existence of such a split between the federal circuit courts greatly increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will feel compelled to weigh in on such bans on affirmative-action preferences, which have been adopted by voters in Michigan and five other states: Arizona, California, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Equal Education; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Program Implementation; Court Litigation; Federal Courts; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Barriers; State Policy; English Language Learners

Abstract:
When the 93rd Congress enacted the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 (EEOA), it required states to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that inhibited equal education participation by their resident students. An examination of the EEOA legislative testimony suggests elected officials established the law to set forth provisions to secure the legal rights of English Language Learners (ELLs). In 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court in "Castaneda v. Pickard" created a three-pronged, science-based test that required English language assistance programs for ELLs to: (1) be based on sound educational theory; (2) have adequate resources for program implementation; and (3) provide continuous assessment to determine if students' English language deficits are being addressed. From 1996 to 2006, while the total U.S. school population increased by slightly less than 3%, the ELL population increased more than 60%. Given the exponential increase in the number of students enrolled in English language acquisition programs and the education spending priorities required in the aftermath of the global economic recession in 2008, an examination of the state of education provisions for ELLs is appropriate. Moreover, 30 years have passed since the federal court issued the "Castaneda" three-part test as a mechanism to assess the probative value of instructional programs earmarked for ELLs. Therefore, a review of judicial declarations since these principles were established is warranted. Accordingly, this article is divided into four sections. The first section provides an overview of case law and federal statutes which set forth provision for ELLs. This section also reviews civil challenges which asked the courts to interpret the "sound educational theory" tenet of the "Castaneda" test over the last three decades. The second section reviews the United States Supreme Court's most recent ruling "Horne v. Flores" and "Rufo v. Suffolk County," a leading case which illustrates the pragmatics of Rule 60 (b) (5) of the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" as applied in "Horne." The third section contains a brief description of state funding for ELL programs. The final section of the article discusses implications of the high court's decision to set aside court-imposed sanctions on Arizona lawmakers, remanding the case back to its original jurisdiction; and what this decision means for the future of language acquisition programs three decades after "Castaneda." (Contains 1 table and 50 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Court Litigation; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; School Districts; Parents; Federal Courts; Access to Education; Student Rights

Abstract:
This study analyzed the 65 hearing officer decisions in Illinois between 1982 and 2010 that were subject to a court appeal available in the Westlaw or Individuals With Disabilities Education Law Report (IDELR) databases. These 65 cases yielded 86 issue rulings. Based on refined measures of outcomes and deference, or standard of judicial review, for issue rulings as the unit of analysis, the principal findings were that (a) outcomes were skewed in favor of districts at both the hearing/review officer and court levels; (b) the outcome upon judicial appeal was the same or largely unchanged for the vast majority of the issue rulings; and (c) the standard of judicial review did not appear to be a major factor in relation to the final court outcome. (Contains 3 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Multivariate Analysis; Factor Analysis; Comparative Analysis; Federal Courts; Judges; Voting; Plants (Botany); Measurement; Animals

Abstract:
A measure of "clusterability" serves as the basis of a new methodology designed to preserve cluster structure in a reduced dimensional space. Similar to principal component analysis, which finds the direction of maximal variance in multivariate space, principal cluster axes find the direction of maximum clusterability in multivariate space. Furthermore, the principal clustering approach falls into the class of projection pursuit techniques. Comparisons are made with existing methodologies both in a simulation study and analysis of real-world data sets. Furthermore, a demonstration of how to interpret the results of the principal cluster axes is provided on the analysis of Supreme Court voting data and similarities between the interpretation of competing procedures (e.g., factor analysis and principal component analysis) are provided. In addition to the Supreme Court analysis, we analyze several data sets often used to test cluster analysis procedures, including Fisher's Iris data, Agresti's Crab data, and a data set on glass fragments. Finally, discussion is provided to help determine when the proposed procedure will be the most beneficial to the researcher. (Contains 5 footnotes, 5 tables, and 8 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Constitutional Law; Corporations; Student Rights; Youth; Federal Legislation; School Responsibility; Childrens Rights; Federal Courts; Court Litigation; Freedom of Speech; Video Games; Judges; Weapons; Desegregation Litigation

Abstract:
The author reports on how U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinions in youths'-rights cases reflect his "originalist" thinking. Justice Thomas, 63, marks two decades on the court Oct. 23, and a hallmark of his tenure is his willingness to carve out a solitary stance on certain issues. Particularly in cases involving schools and the rights of children, he has issued sharp dissents from some of the rulings of his liberal colleagues, and concurrences that go further to the right than even some of his fellow conservatives. Justice Thomas is not always isolated in his views. In the eyes of some legal observers, he has gained an influential place on the largely conservative court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. An August article in "The New Yorker" said that "in several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader" of the court, specifically in the areas of gun rights and in the free speech of corporations. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Global Education; Terrorism; Universities; Federal Courts; Court Litigation; Foreign Countries; Federal Government; Victims; Islam; Archaeology

Abstract:
In lawsuits pending in federal courts in Boston and Chicago, Americans harmed by terrorist attacks linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran are asserting claim to artifacts they believe belong to that nation, in their quest to win more than $4-billion in damages. The institutions that hold the artifacts, which include Harvard University and the University of Chicago, have been joined by an unlikely set of allies--the Iranian government, the U.S. Justice Department, and the National Iranian American Council--in arguing against using the archaeological finds to settle the lawsuits' claims. The lawsuits are expected to drag on for several more years, and some legal analysts familiar with them believe the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually be asked to weigh in, especially since the disputes involve questions related to the federal government's power to grant or deny foreign nations immunity from having their assets here seized. The confiscation of artifacts could set a troubling precedent, some scholars say. Other countries might become reluctant to lend cultural objects to institutions in the United States, and the United States could become more vulnerable to having its own cultural objects seized when they are on loan in foreign countries. The controversy appears to be putting a damper on efforts by U.S. institutions to borrow cultural materials from other nations. Jennifer Anglim Kreder, a professor of law at Northern Kentucky University and a co-author of an analysis of the litigation in a forthcoming issue of the "Washington University Global Studies Law Review," says the loss of access to such artifacts would hamper American universities' efforts to teach students about the Middle East. Thomas Fortune Fay, a lawyer representing one set of plaintiffs' families of the victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, argues that his clients are owed compensation for damages. Some claims against relics at the University of Chicago, by Americans affected by a 1997 bombing attack in Jerusalem, are pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Among the questions at issue there is whether a lower court erred in handing down a default judgment against Iran after its government claimed immunity from such legal proceedings and did not show up in court to defend itself. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
School Desegregation; Court Litigation; School Resegregation; Public Education; Federal Courts; Race; Social Science Research

Abstract:
This article provides historical and legal context for recent U.S. Supreme Court school desegregation decisions. The Supreme Court's race-based and race-neutral arguments from "Brown" (1954) to "Parents Involved" (2007) are examined within their broader context. Policy implications and potential support for diversity goal arguments given the Obama administration's appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan as the 111th and 112th Supreme Court Justices are considered in light of enduring issues and guiding ideals delineated over half a century ago in Gunnar Myrdal's landmark study of race in the United States, "An American Dilemma." (Contains 11 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Democracy; Federal Courts; Political Power; College Faculty; Constitutional Law; Marriage; Homosexuality; Social Bias; United States History; Attitudes; Public Opinion

Abstract:
The latest episode in the long-running struggle for control of the Constitution, and the political power that goes with it, is playing out in the federal courts in California. The contending philosophies are originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be read as it was originally understood by the framers and ratifiers, and the congeries of cultural and political theories proposed by academics and progressives, but not contemplated by the founders. It is difficult to say whether originalism or one of the alternatives is winning the debate. The answer to such questions is inevitably subjective, but it is clear that originalism has been gaining adherents and may be close to dominance in constitutional scholarship. However, the ultimate fate of originalism will depend upon the character of judges and professors. They have a constant temptation to yield to the allure of power to do good as they see the good rather than as the political branches to which people have entrusted the care of democracy see it. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Equal Education; Citizenship; Court Litigation; Immigration; Access to Education; Undocumented Immigrants; Childrens Rights; Federal Courts; Place of Residence

Abstract:
In this article, I show that the intersection between education policy and immigration law in the United States sustains a permanent underclass and reinforces the deliberate disenfranchisement of students without authorized immigration status. I critically analyze the Supreme Court case "Plyler s. Doe", and I suggest the DREAM Act as a means for these students to secure a "right to rights" for economic, social, and political agency. At the heart of the argument is my assertion that domiciled residency ought to ensure these students' right to educational equity within the United States, from preschool through postsecondary levels. Throughout, I reflect on the amassing group of well-educated students, whose papers are diplomas, and who increasingly make apparent the futility of citizenship status for demarcating possibilities for mobile border crossing--not only territorial borders, but also the walls built up to obstruct class and social border crossings. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website