Court rules against parents, denies felons’ vote
on Nov 14, 2005 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents, not school officials, have the burden of proving a parents’ claim that an educational plan for their disabled child does not satisfy their child’s needs. The 6-2 ruling came in the case of Schaffer v. Weast, involving the burden of proof in disputed cases of student placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Federal courts have been split three ways on the issue.
The parents, however, would not have the burden of proof, the school would, if school officials seek relief in an administrative hearing, the opinion stressed.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority: “The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an Individual Educational Plan is properly placed on the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district.” In the Weast case, the Fourth Circuit had ruled the same way, reversing a District Court ruling putting the burden on the school district. The parents’ appeal to the Supreme Court argued unsuccessfully that school officials must always justify the appropriateness of a disabled child’s school plan.(Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in Monday’s decision. Dissents were filed by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)
The Court agreed to hear two cases on issues involving prison life. (Here is the Order List.) It agreed to clarify what steps prison inmates must take before they may file a federal court lawsuit challenging prison conditions. The issue involves the scope of the duty under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to use administrative remedies before suing (Woodford v. Ngo, 05-416). The Circuit Courts are in disagreement about the issue. In the Ngo case, the specific issue is whether the exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the inmate files an administrative complaint too late, after a filing deadline has passed, or is otherwise flawed procedurally.
And the Court granted review of whether prison officials have a duty to allow dangerous inmates access to newspapers, magazines and photos (Beard v. Banks, 04-1739).
The Court also dismissed, without deciding, the case of Maryland v. Blake (04-373), seeking to clarify when police officials violate an individual’s Miranda rights by making comments to the individual after he sought a lawyer. The brief order said the case had been “improvidently granted” — an indication that, after briefing and argument, the Court found the issues in no need of resolution.
In the most significant order denying review on Monday, the Court declined to rule on the validity of state laws that ban all convicted felons from voting, even after they have served their sentences. This marked the third time in the past year that the Court has passed up the issue of felons’ voting rights, under the Voting Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment. The denied case was Johnson v. Bush (05-212).
The Court’s denial leaves intact a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit that the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 does not apply to states’ felon disenfranchisement laws. If Section 2 did apply to such laws, that Court said, it would raise constitutional problems, because the Fourteenth Amendment itself gives states the authority to deny the vote to convicted criminals. The Circuit Court also ruled that Florida’s ban is not racially discriminatory under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In another denial, the Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a display of the motto, “In God We Trust,” on the exterior facade of a government building. Two lawyers in Davidson County, N.C., had asked the Court to order the Fourth Circuit to reconsider a ruling upholding the display’s legality, and to take into account the Court’s ruling last term against a government display of the Ten Commandments. The Court instead simply denied review, without explanation. The controversy over “In God We Trust” in government settings, however, continues apace in lower court cases.
The Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the government’s views on whether federal law regulating energy-using products preempts the field and thus bars states from enforcing their own regulations for household appliances. The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal law does not preempt California regulations. The case is Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute v. Energy Resources and Development Commission, 05-331.
