IT'S NOT ALL BAD: POSITIVE RULINGS AND WHY ACCESS TO THE COURTS IS A GOOD THING

We are often focused on the incredibly detrimental effects of so many recent federal court decisions. It's hard not to lose sight of the fact that sometimes the courts can still be places where rights are upheld and justice does in fact prevail. Here are a few recent news stories that show how important the courts are and what a positive difference access to the courts can make.

 

EPA CAN REGULATE EMISSIONS, SUPREME COURT SAYS
April 2007 brought an especially exciting victory for the environment. There is tremendous concern these days about global warming, both within the United States and around the world. In the first ever Supreme Court ruling on climate change, Massachusetts v. EPA, it was decided that the EPA does indeed have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in new cars. We as Americans can be hopeful that this decision is the beginning of a period of greater awareness of the consequences of our actions on our prized environmental resources.

 

COURT UPHOLDS CIVIL RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples are entitled to the "same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples." This ruling is a positive step toward equality, and proves that some courts uphold equal rights for all.

 

BAN ON NEW FOREST ROADS UPHELD BY FEDERAL JUDGE
In September 2006, a federal judge ruled to protect about 44 million acres of national forestland from loggers and road builders. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, one of environmental groups that filed the suit, said that this "marks a huge victory for America's last remaining wild forest and the millions of Americans who have spoken out in support of protecting these special places for future generations."

 

FEDERAL JUDGE PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN FLORIDA
In August 2006, "a federal court in Miami blocked enforcement of a Florida state law enacted earlier this year that would have imposed damaging fines on voter registration groups. The plaintiffs, civic organizations and voting rights groups that have been working in Florida through many election cycles without government interference, say that the law had shut down their efforts to help eligible voters get on the rolls." Read the press release from the Brennan Center.

 

JUDGE REJECTS BUSH PLAN TO LOG IN A NATIONAL FOREST
Also in August 2006, a federal judge rejected the Bush administration's plan to allow increased logging in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and said that the government had "trampled the applicable environmental laws.''

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT STILL IN TACT (BARELY)
William Hibbs, a former staff member of the Nevada Department of Human Resources, was fired from his job while on leave to care for his injured wife. He sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed in 1993, which ensures that parents can take leave to care for new children and that all workers are entitled to up to twelve weeks annually to care for ailing parents, spouses or children. The district court judge threw out Mr. Hibbs' case, basing its decision on a new line of Supreme Court decisions that restrict when people can sue states for violating the law. The judge ruled that William couldn't sue Nevada without the state's consent.

When William's case finally reached the Supreme Court in 2003 as Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, he won. It was determined that the wording of the Family Medical Leave Act was specifically intended to override any protection a state might believe it has from being sued. The case was decided by a very slim margin, and the question is when people can sue states is very much alive in the Supreme Court.

 

COURTS LOOKS TO INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR JUVENILES

While the 2005 Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons did not actively roll back our civil rights, it is important because it was one of the first decisions in which the justices looked to international human rights law for guidance. Involving the prosecution of Missouri resident Christopher Simmons for a murder committed while he was seventeen years old, the case spoke to the issue of whether or not the death penalty could be used as punishment for crimes committed as a minor. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, noted that only seven other countries had used the death penalty since 1990, but that each had disavowed of the practice since. It also noted that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (a 1990 declaration that has been ratified by every nation in the world except for the United States and Somalia) explicitly prohibited capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles. The opinion also quoted a body of academic work in the social sciences which established that adolescents not only lacked the maturity and responsibility of adults but were more sensitive to negative influences in environments that they had no freedom to escape. With the argument that executing youth was a breach of “evolving standards of decency in a civilized society,” the 5-4 decision came at a time when 29 juvenile offenders were awaiting execution in Texas alone.

While Justice O’Connor held a dissenting opinion in the case, she did acknowledge that “the Court has consistently referred to foreign and international law as relevant to its assessment of evolving standards of decency" and that "international consensus . . . can serve to confirm the reasonableness of a consonant and genuine American consensus.”

 

COURTS RULE SCHOOLS ARE OPEN TO UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN
Public schools in Texas shut their doors to undocumented children from Mexico in the 1970s. It was not until after several lawsuits were filed against Texas officials for denying the children an education that the school system changed.

In 1975, Texas enacted a law that forbade school districts from using federal money to educate undocumented children. As a result, several school districts in Texas either denied admission to undocumented children or charged them a tuition fee to attend a public school, a school that was free to everyone but them. For children who had entered the United States without prior approval and whose parents could not afford to pay tuition, this meant they could not attend school. Numerous lawsuits were filed against Texas officials, including a class action on behalf of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin who were living in Texas.

The case Plyler v. Doe (2003) made its way up to the Supreme Court and ended in a victory for the children. The Court held that the Texas law violated the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits Congress and the states from enacting laws that discriminate against classes of people. Undocumented children are entitled to receive the same free education as U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, the Court held, and the Texas law discriminated against these children by denying them the same opportunity to attend a free public school. Additionally, the Court noted, these innocent children were not to blame for their undocumented status, as most did not personally make the choice to move and live in the United States. Denying them a basic education would not only discriminate against them for something they had no control over, it would also impose a lifetime hardship on them because of it.

As a result of this case, schools in Texas and across the country are required to provide a free public education to all children, including those who might have initially entered the country without approval.

EQUAL EDUCATION FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
For thousands of students who did not speak English in 1970's era San Francisco, simply understanding what was happening in the classroom was nearly impossible. The school district they attended did not offer to teach children in their native language, nor did it offer to teach them English. And on top of that, the California Education Code required students to be proficient in English before they could receive a diploma.

So, a group of more than 2,000 students of Chinese ancestry filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District, alleging that they were receiving unequal educational opportunities because of the lack of programming to help with their language barriers.

The Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols that the non-English speaking students were being discriminated against and required the school district to provide educational programs to deal with the language barriers. The Court based its decision on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the ground of "race, color or national origin" in any program or activity receiving federal funding. Because the San Francisco Unified School District received federal funds, it was obligated under the Civil Rights Act to provide equal treatment to all students. Additionally, the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the governmental body that was charged with making sure federally-funded school districts did not discriminate against students, had issued guidelines requiring school districts to "rectify the language deficiency." The San Francisco schools needed to comply with those regulations, the Court held.

Though the 1974 decision never outlined actual steps that school districts should take to implement English as a second language (ESL) classes or bilingual classrooms, it does stand for the proposition that non-English speaking citizens have a right to an equal education.

Click on the link for more information about the ability to enforce federal law and make states accountable.

Have you heard any other good news from the courts? Let us know.