Constitutional Law

High Court Mulls Claims Filed Under Separate Civil Rights Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court does not appear likely to accept the arguments from Massachusetts parents that their daughter’s public school district violated her civil liberties protected under the Civil Rights Act, according to analysis of yesterday’s argument in the case by The New York Times’ Adam Liptak. Liptak reported that justices appeared in agreement that bringing a legal challenge under the newer Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination by schools receiving federal dollars, does not bar the parents from seeking remedy under the earlier Civil Rights Act. However, Liptak wrote that “several justices” also appeared ready to accept the fact that if the parents could not win under Title IX, they couldn’t win pursuant to Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.

In this instance, the parents sued their daughter’s school district under both civil rights laws, arguing that it did not take appropriate action in responding to their daughter’s claims of being sexually harassed by a peer on the school bus. The Times reported that the kindergartner accused an 8-year-old boy of forcing her to expose herself in front of students on the school bus. Lower federal courts dismissed the parents’ claims under Title IX, concluding they had not proved the school district violated the law. A lower federal court also dismissed the parents’ Sec. 1983 Civil Rights Act, concluding Title IX precluded sex discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act.  

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during oral argument that, “In the civil rights area, there are a lot of overlapping statutes. Yes, you have two claims. But if you lose under IX, you are going to lose under 1983 as well.”

In analysis of the case, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, for the Constitutional Accountability Center’s “Text & History” blog, Elizabeth Wydra wrote that she hoped the high court would not use the case as another opportunity to prevent individuals from seeking redress in the courts. Wydra wrote that, “It would thus be strange indeed for the Supreme Court to hold that a claim under the Constitution, brought under a civil rights statute passed in 1871 specifically to provide individuals with civil remedies for constitutional violations, is precluded by a later congressional enactment ….” A transcript of argument in Fitzgerald, as well as other analysis, of the case is available here.

The high court also heard argument yesterday in a case involving the Clean Water Act. In Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, the high court weighed whether the federal law allows the Environmental Protection Agency to use a cost-benefit analysis in using technology that doesn’t harm the environment. See Scotus Wiki for filings and analysis of the case here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).