The
purpose of this activity is to help you become more familiar with H. W. Perry's
criteria for understanding why the Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari in
a particular case.
Follow these
steps:
1. Read the short descriptions
of each of the four cases. If you know whether or not the Court has granted
certiorari in any of the cases, please keep that to yourself so that you don't
shortcut your group's deliberation.
2. Discuss how each of
the 11 criteria apply to each case. Appoint a timekeeper so you can get through
all four cases. Allow about seven minutes per case. Focus your discussions on
the meaning of the criteria as they apply to the specific cases. See if you can
decide for each case whether or not the Supreme Court would grant certiorari. There is no need for you to reach a
consensus, but try to be clear about why (i.e., on which criteria) you are
disagreeing.
3. Select a spokesperson
who will represent your group's deliberations in the debriefing of the
activity.
4. Have fun!
A parent has
appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that his free-speech rights were
violated when a high school newspaper and yearbook refused to run his
advertisement urging sexual abstinence. Lawyers for the
The case arose
after
The yearbook
editors rejected the ad as a political advocacy statement that was out of step
with the rest of the publication. They urged that it be revised to express a
congratulatory graduation message, but the parent refused. He then submitted
the ad to the newspaper, including a line that students should contact his
group for "accurate information on abstinence, safer sex and
condoms." The student editors rejected the ad, citing its policy against
running political statements or ads by any advocacy groups.
The parent
sued, alleging the town, the principal and the teachers who served as advisors
to both publications had violated his constitutional free-speech rights. A
federal judge and then the appeals court ruled against the parent. The issue of
whether high school student-run newspapers and yearbooks must accept ads with
political messages has not been heard by any other federal courts in the
Will the Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case?
Adapted from a piece by Reuters, June 1, 1998.
The
administration has filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to review a recent
decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that deals with public aid to
parochial schools. In Mitchell v. Helms the Fifth Circuit court ruled
that it is unconstitutional for public schools to provide computers and other
instructional equipment for classroom use in religious schools. The Fifth
Circuit case was a challenge to a provision of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 under which public schools receive Federal aid for
special services and equipment, including computers, and must share these
materials on a "secular, neutral and nonidealogical" basis with
students enrolled in private schools within their
boundaries. The administration has proposed spending $800 million on an
education technology program that would, among other things, help connect every
classroom and school library in the country to the Internet. Although the
Supreme Court ruled two years earlier in Agostino v. Felton that the
Constitution permitted public school teachers to offer remedial courses in
parochial school classrooms, it is unclear whether using public money to
provide computers to religious schools violates the Constitution. The Fifth
Circuit has ruled that it does, while the Ninth Circuit issued an opposite
ruling in a similar case three years earlier.
Will the Supreme Court grant
certiorari in this case?
Adapted from an article by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, June 6, 1999.
After
voters in a state in the
While some
major companies in the
The federal
district court ruled against Jill Brill, and the Court of Appeals in her
circuit affirmed. She has now asked the United States Supreme Court to hear her
case. A search of federal court decisions shows that is the first claim of its
type, although word in the legal grapevine is that several similar suits will
be filed in other circuits in the next few months.
Will the Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case?
(Please note this is a hypothetical fact pattern)
Tom Federson
is 14 years old and resides in a secure juvenile justice institution in his
state. He has been there for nine months and it looks like he won't be going
anywhere for a few more years. He has a rare kidney problem that can only be
treated through extensive (and expensive) surgery. Although his doctor says that
Tom's life span will be dramatically shortened unless he has the surgery, the
state has refused to pay because the legislature has not adequately funded the
juvenile justice system and the system is broke. Because of his illness, he is
unable to attend the school within the institution and has received no
educational services since his arrival at the facility. His public defender has
asked the institution to provide a tutor for Tom, but the head administrator of
the institution says they have no budget for this service. Both of Tom's
parents are indigent. Tom sued the administrator of the facility claiming that
his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution were
being violated. He lost in federal district court, and also in the United
States Court of Appeals in his circuit. He lives in a circuit that has a
particularly well-regarded United States Court of Appeals. Tom has now filed an
in forma pauperis petition asking the United States Supreme Court to
hear his case.
Only one other
federal circuit has ruled that youth held in juvenile justice institutions have
the right to non-emergency medical services, and no circuit has ruled that such
youth who are ill have the right to tutors.
Will the Supreme
Court grant certiorari in this case?
(Please note - this a hypothetical fact pattern)