Archives, Room Use Only - HD6515.T252 O73 1927

Students walk outside Detroit's Pershing High School in 2017. A lawsuit claims the state of Michigan failed to provide the city's students with the most fundamental of skills: the ability to read.; Credit: Carlos Osorio/AP

In a landmark decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that children have a constitutional right to literacy, dealing a remarkable victory to students.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by students of five Detroit schools, claiming that because of deteriorating buildings, teacher shortages and inadequate textbooks, the state of Michigan failed to provide them with the most fundamental of skills: the ability to read.

For decades, civil rights lawyers have tried to help students and families in underfunded schools by arguing that the U.S. Constitution guarantees children at least a basic education. Federal courts have consistently disagreed. Until now.

The ability to read and write is "essential" for a citizen to participate in American democracy, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. One cannot effectively vote, answer a jury summons, pay taxes or even read a road sign if illiterate, wrote Judge Eric Clay, and so where "a group of children is relegated to a school system that does not provide even a plausible chance to attain literacy, we hold that the Constitution provides them with a remedy."

"Like a daycare"

The 2016 complaint alleges that Michigan's then-Gov. Rick Snyder and the state's board of education denied Detroit students their fundamental right to literacy. It cites textbooks that were tattered, outdated and in such short supply that teachers could not send work home. The suit also describes school buildings that were in shocking disrepair: broken toilets and water fountains, leaking ceilings, shattered windows.

In warmer months, the complaint says, a lack of air-conditioning caused some students to faint; in winter, students regularly wore hats, coats and scarves to class. Students became accustomed to seeing cockroaches, mice or rats scurrying across the floor.

"You're sitting down in the classroom, and you see rodents in a corner. Or you can hear things crawling in the books," says Jamarria Hall, a plaintiff in the class-action suit, who graduated in 2017. "But the saddest thing of all was really the resources that they had, like, being in a class where there's 34 students, but there's only six textbooks."

Given these conditions, the five K-12 schools named in the complaint also struggled to retain teachers. Many classes were taught by paraprofessionals or inexperienced teachers placed through the Teach For America program. Often, Hall says, when teachers quit suddenly or didn't show up, students would simply be sent to the gym.

"For days on end — weeks on end — if the school didn't have a substitute or couldn't fill that gap, the gym was basically the go-to place. Or they would set students down in the classroom and really put on a movie, like Frozen... like a daycare," Hall remembers.

At one school, the complaint says, a math teacher quit soon after the school year began "due to frustration with large class sizes and lack of support. ... Eventually, the highest performing eighth grade student was asked to take over teaching both seventh and eighth grade math. This student taught both math classes for a month."

The complaint delivers a crushing assessment of these schools' failure to educate students: Proficiency rates "hover near zero in nearly all subject areas," it says.

"Illiteracy is the norm."

Previous legal efforts to argue that families in low-income, underfunded schools deserve better have run headlong into the U.S. Constitution, which makes no mention of the word "education," let alone a right to it.

One of the most famous cases, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, made it all the way to the Supreme Court before the justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that families in poorer districts have no federal right to the same levels of funding as wealthier districts. They essentially said: The system isn't fair, but the U.S. government has no obligation to make it so.

In fact, the first judge to hear the current, Detroit case came to much the same conclusion.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy dismissed the Michigan suit in 2018, writing that, yes, "literacy — and the opportunity to obtain it — is of incalculable importance," but not necessarily a fundamental right.

The students' lawyers disputed Murphy's reasoning and appealed his ruling, and, on Thursday, two of three judges took their side.

"We're not asking for a Cadillac"

In the past, many of the arguments used to pursue educational equity in the courts have been inherently comparative. Using the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, lawyers have focused on disparity — how one school or one district's resources compare to another's.

"This [case] is different," says Tacy Flint, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP and a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's not comparative. It's not a question of some people being treated worse than others. This fundamental right to a basic minimum education is a right that every child has."

Flint and her co-counsel focused more on a different pillar of the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause, saying the Constitution protects essential rights that "you can't imagine our constitutional democracy or our political life functioning without." And, Flint says, "access to literacy clearly fits that description."

Put simply: The plaintiffs' lawyers did not set out to level the playing field for all students. Instead, they attempted to use the appalling conditions of five Detroit schools to establish a floor.

"This case focuses squarely on literacy as the irreducible minimum," says Kristine Bowman, professor of law and education policy at Michigan State University.

And that minimum is pretty minimal.

"We're not asking for a Cadillac, or even a used, low-end Kia. We're asking for something more than the Flintstones' car," says co-counsel Evan Caminker, a former dean of the University of Michigan Law School.

In his dissent to Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Eric Murphy argued that accepting literacy as a constitutional right would open a Pandora's box for states, and force federal courts to wrestle with questions beyond their purview: "May they compel states to raise their taxes to generate the needed [school] funds? Or order states to give parents vouchers so that they may choose different schools? How old may textbooks be before they become constitutionally outdated? What minimum amount of training must teachers receive? Which HVAC systems must public schools use?"

Murphy wrote that history, and legal precedent, are on his side: "The Supreme Court has refused to treat education as a fundamental right every time a party has asked it to do so."

After all, the judge reasoned, food, housing and medical care are also "critical for human flourishing and for the exercise of constitutional rights," but the Constitution "does not compel states to spend funds on these necessities of life." Why should education be any different?

A spokesperson for Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says her office is reviewing the court's decision before it decides what to do next. Whitmer's office also said in a statement that "the governor has a strong record on education and has always believed we have a responsibility to teach every child to read."

While the ruling is historic, it comes with several caveats. Basic literacy is a remarkably low standard to set for schools. As such, legal experts say, this ruling won't have an immediate impact on children in underfunded schools.

"We're not talking about the court having to recognize a broad-based, free-floating, generalized right to education," says Michelle Adams, a professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York City. This will not "open the floodgates of litigation. We're talking about a situation where students are being warehoused and required to be in school and yet they literally cannot read."

The case is also relatively young. The court's decision could be reviewed by the full 6th Circuit, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, or returned to play out in District Court. Whitmer's office has not yet indicated how the state will respond.

"The fight is not done yet," says Jamarria Hall, who is now living in Tallahassee, Fla., and taking classes at a community college. "We were fighting just to get into the ring. Now we're in the ring. Now the fight really starts."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Is Denver's B-Cycle program nothing but a form of U.N. control of the city? The Mayoral Republican gubernatorial frontrunner thinks so.

Reading the Constitution can help us to understand our rights as citizens, Norcross personal injury law firm says.

An Iowa judge has ruled unconstitutional a state law that would have blocked Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from receiving federal money to provide sex education programs to Iowa youth. Fifth...

An Iowa judge has ruled unconstitutional a state law that would have blocked Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from receiving federal money to provide sex education programs to Iowa youth.

Fifth Judicial District Judge Paul Scott on Wednesday ruled the law “has no valid, ‘realistically conceivable’ purpose that serves a legitimate government interest as it is both irrationally overinclusive and under-inclusive.”

“The act violates (Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s) right to equal protection under the law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Scott ruled in issuing a permanent injunction to prevent the law’s implementation.

House File 766, passed in 2019 by the Republican-controlled Iowa House and Senate, excluded any Iowa organization that “provides or promotes abortion” from receiving federal dollars that support sex education and related services to Iowa youth.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and ACLU of Iowa challenged the law, filing a lawsuit shortly after Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bill into law.

Polk County District Court issued a temporary injunction blocking the law, which was to go into effect July 1, allowing Planned Parenthood to continue providing sex education programming throughout the past year.

The governor’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood and ACLU argued that by blocking the abortion provider from the two federal grants — the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Community Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (CAPP) — the law violated protections of free speech, due process and equal protection.

“The decision recognizes that the law blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving grants to provide this programming violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection,” ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said in a statement Thursday.

Though Planned Parenthood would be excluded, the law did allow “nonprofit health care delivery systems” to remain eligible for the federal funding, even if they are contracted with or are affiliated with an entity that performs abortions or maintains a facility where abortions are performed.

By doing so, the law effectively singles out Planned Parenthood, but allows other possible grant recipients to provide an array of abortion-related services, according to the court documents.

“The carved-out exception for the ‘nonprofit health care delivery system’ facilities undermines any rationale the State produces of not wanting to be affiliated with or provide funds to organizations that partake in any abortion-related activity,” Scott ruled. .

In fiscal year 2019, Planned Parenthood received about $265,000 through the federal grants, including $85,000 to offer PREP curriculum in Polk, Pottawattamie and Woodbury counties.

It was awarded $182,000 this year to offer CAPP curriculum in Linn County, as well as in Dallas, Des Moines, Jasper, Lee, Polk, Plymouth and Woodbury counties.

The grants are administered by the Iowa Department of Human Services and the Iowa Department of Public Health.

Planned Parenthood has provided sex education to students in 31 schools and 12 community-based youth organizations in Iowa using state-approved curriculum since 2005, according to a new release.

The focus has remained “on areas with the highest rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections,” the news release said.

“Today’s decision ensures that teens and young adults across Iowa will continue to have access to medically accurate sex education programs, despite the narrow and reckless policies of anti-abortion lawmakers,” said Erin Davison-Rippey, executive director of Planned Parenthood North Central States.

Comments: (319) 368-8536; michaela.ramm@thegazette.com

Joseph McGhee, a former Flagstaff restaurant worker, filed the challenge last month, saying he was laid off after Ducey prohibited in-house dining

The national anthem has been rewritten and performed for the first time in Alice Springs by a group that says it should be more inclusive of all Australians.

Dani Larkin knows the struggles of a young Indigenous woman in a "nation of divisiveness", and insists that constitutional recognition is the key to unlocking meaningful change.

The constitution was written more than a century ago, but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not mentioned in it at all, despite having lived here for more than 50,000 years. What is constitutional recognition and why is it important? What are some of the perceived barriers to changing the constitution?

A student group at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law has been recognized for its outstanding programming by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

A Facebook post offers what appears to be a fictitious excerpt from a real Supreme Court ruling to claim that COVID-19 emergency measures are illegal.

Anti-democratic Democrats opened up a new front in their relentless war on an independent judiciary in America.

A federal appeals court rules that a state's failure to teach kids their ABCs denies students their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Research Event

Research Event

Members Event

Event participants

Dr Mukulika Banerjee, Associate Professor; Director, South Asia Centre, LSE

Kapil Komireddi, Author, Malevolent Republic: A Short History of the New India

Deepa Kumar, Lead India Analyst, Country Risk, IHS Markit

Chair: Dr Gareth Price, Senior Research Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House

Research Event

16 January 2020

Oh would that 'less laws/more liberty/more state capital power' look anything like Mike Pence's Religious Freedom Restoration Act or in other words the 'we Conservative Republican Christians are such oppressed persecuted victims WAAAAA WAAAA' Bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIikqPmbgvI 

Students engaged in a protest against a culture they saw as punitive; their principal suspended them. What did a court say?

US President Donald Trump says he plans to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorised immigrants born on US soil.

Fun and thought-provoking Constitutional programs to take place on April 4, 11, 18 and 25, 2019.

A look at how Kesavananda Bharti saved the Indian constitution

The English High Court, in the recent case Kairos Shipping Limited v. Enka & Co LLC & Others (Atlantic Confidence) [2013] EWHC 1904 (Comm), considered whether or not a tonnage limitation fund may be constituted by provision of a P&I club...