| |
 Justice matters and justices matter: Part 2
by V. Wayne Young, Executive Director
Only two months ago, I used this space to describe the importance of the United States Supreme Court, and the impending selection of a Chief Justice, as they impact the shaping of important education issues that wind up in the courts. Now that Chief Justice John Roberts is in place, we will soon see a tangible example of this premise,as the high court has already decided a critical special education case (in favor of the school district, by the way). But Part 2 of this judicial saga has now begun to play out with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the remaining vacancy on the court. If approved by the U.S. Senate, Judge Alito has the potential to be a pivotal player in the ultimate outcome of many important school law cases. So what can we expect from a prospective Justice Alito? No one can predict with certainty, but Judge Alito is a veteran jurist who does have a track record and a paper trail. He has been an appellate judge on the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the past 15 years. He is the author of two high-profile education law opinions in the past few months, which provide a look into his reasoning, his writing, and his approach to the law.
Judge Alito wrote the opinion in a case involving a special education student who had enrolled in a neighboring school district to escape years of harassment and bullying by other students in his home district. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had ordered the home district to pay the student's tuition to the receiving district, finding that the home district could not offer the student a “free appropriate public education” due to the bullying. The trial court had reversed the finding by the ALJ, and ordered the student to remain in his home district. Judge Alito wrote the unanimous opinion (the federal appellate courts use three-judge panels) of the appeals court, overruling the trial court, and reinstating the ALJ's ruling. He stated that the trial court failed to give “due weight” to the ruling of the ALJ. Though decided on a very narrow “technicality,” the opinion contains some indicators of a judge who believes in judicial restraint, rather than activism. The second case involved a school district's denial of the request of a religious organization to distribute materials to parents and students at back-to-school night. The district had a policy of allowing such distribution, but denied the group permission to do so, stating that it would appear to be government endorsement of religion.The group sued the district and prevailed at the trial court level. The appellate court upheld the decision. In his opinion, again for a unanimous panel, Judge Alito wrote that the facts were “undisputed” that the school district had engaged in “viewpoint discrimination,” excluding the group solely because it was religious. He further wrote that “established Supreme Court precedent” required the court to rule against the district. (Recently, two other federal appellate courts decided similar cases the same way.) This decision, like the special education case, does not offer broad or deep insight into Judge Alito's judicial philosophy, or into how he might decide future cases. It does, however, offer a glimpse of a judge who views precedent as important, and who practices restraint in carrying out the function of the judiciary.
It will be interesting to watch his confirmation process, and even more interesting, if he is confirmed, to see if his philosophy of judicial restraint remains intact.
-12/2005
|
|
