Tag: Education

After Court Decision, Could Title IX Expand to Cover Hazing?

A recent federal court decision in Louisiana suggests that Title IX requires institutions of higher education to treat fraternities and sororities equally. While Title IX generally involves cases of sexual assaults on campus, this new lawsuit argues that fraternity members are more at risk than sorority members of hazing due to unequal protections by colleges.

The lawsuit alleges that Louisiana State University (“LSU”) treats Greek organizations for men and women differently. The Plaintiffs allege that four fraternity pledges have died during hazing incidents at LSU since 1979, whereby hazing of sorority pledges is virtually non-existent due to restrictions and strict oversight provided by LSU. By not offering these same protections to the men involved in Greek organizations, the lawsuit states LSU has violated Title IX.

According to USA Today, Title IX has never been tested in hazing cases. As stated in that story, the lawsuit pushes the boundaries of Title IX enforcement. If successful, the litigation could set a precedent that drastically changes college disciplinary systems nationwide. Colleges and universities would have to ensure that they treat fraternities and sororities similarly when enforcing anti-hazing laws.

This lawsuit could also help shape new legislation. Florida recently enacted legislation that enables prosecutors to bring charges against fraternity and sorority members who weren’t present for hazing activities, but helped plan the events. Similar legislation is likely to be proposed elsewhere.

As the new academic year begins, institutions should take steps to enforce anti-hazing laws uniformly among fraternities and sororities in order to minimize the risk of similar claims based on Title IX.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
For more university litigation news, please see the National Law Review Public Education & Services type of law page.

Louisiana Governor Declares Statewide Emergency After Cyber-Attacks Against School Systems

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, for the first time in history, declared a statewide cybersecurity emergency last week, following cyber-attacks against several school systems in the state.

By declaring a cybersecurity emergency, the state is able to garner needed resources, including cybersecurity experts from the Louisiana National Guard, State Police, the Office of Technology Services, the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana State University, and others to assist school systems in Sabine, Morehouse and Oachita parishes that were compromised with malware attacks.

According to the Governor’s office, although these resources are working on the incident, the threat is ongoing. The Governor established a statewide Cyber Security Commission in 2017 and stated that these incidents against school systems in the State are the reason the Commission was established.

Several states, but not all, have established Cyber Security Commissions or similar public-private partnerships in order to prepare for and respond to cyber-attacks that affect state resources. Setting up the Commission in advance of attacks like the ones that occurred in Louisiana will assist states in responding quickly to these attacks and provide appropriate resources and help to those affected.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
This article is by Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP.
For more in cybersecurity issues, please see the Communications, Media & Internet law page on the National Law Review.

IRS Notice Offers Good News for State Colleges and Universities (at Least for Now)

In January 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2019-09, which provides interim guidance for Section 4960 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a reminder, Section 4960 imposes an excise tax of 21 percent on compensation paid to a covered employee in excess of $1 million and on any excess parachute payments paid to a covered employee. A “covered employee” is one of the organization’s top-five highest-paid individuals for years beginning after December 31, 2016. An organization must determine its covered employees each year, and once an individual becomes a covered employee, that individual will remain a covered employee for all future years.

Of particular interest to state colleges and universities is the answer to Q–5 of the notice. It provides that the Section 4960 excise tax does not apply to a governmental entity (including a state college or university) that is not tax-exempt under Section 501(a) and does not exclude income under Section 115(l). What does this mean? Basically, if an institution does not rely on either of those statutory exemptions from taxation, the institution will not be subject to the excise tax provisions of Section 4960. This exclusion from Section 4960 means the institution could compensate its athletic coaches (or other covered employees) in excess of the $1 million threshold and not be subject to the 21 percent excise tax.

As we discussed previously, some institutions rely on political subdivision status for tax purposes. Importantly, the notice also provides that any institution relying on its political subdivision status to avoid taxation, as opposed to relying on either of the above-mentioned exemptions, will be subject to the Section 4960 excise tax if the institution is “related” to any entity that does rely on either of the exemptions.

Although the IRS’s guidance is helpful in determining Section 4960’s application to state colleges and universities, it appears not to reflect “Congressional intent.” On January 2, 2019, the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives released a draft technical corrections bill that seeks to correct “technical and clerical” issues in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The corrections bill seeks to clarify Section 4960’s application by stating that any college or university that is an agency or instrumentality of any government or any political subdivision, or that is owned or operated by a government or political subdivision, is subject to Section 4960. Given the current state of affairs in Washington, D.C., we are not confident that the corrections bill’s expanded application to state colleges and universities will ever come to fruition.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

University Wins Important Tuition Claw-Back Case

A federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut recently ruled in favor of Johnson & Wales University in a tuition claw-back case. Roumeliotis v. Johnson & Wales University (In re DeMauro), 2018 WL 3064231 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 19, 2018). Wiggin and Dana attorneys Aaron Bayer, Benjamin Daniels, and Sharyn Zuch had filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the University on behalf of the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, the Association of Independent Colleges & Universities of Massachusetts, and the Association of Independent Colleges & Universities of Rhode Island.

The federal bankruptcy trustee in Roumeliotis sought to force the University to disgorge tuition payments that the parent-debtors had paid on behalf of their daughter. The trustee claimed that the payments were fraudulent transfers because the parents were insolvent at the time, and because the trustee believed that parents do not receive value when they pay for their adult children’s education. The trustee argued that the tuition should be returned to the debtors’ estate and be available for distribution to the parents’ creditors – even though the University was unaware of the parents’ financial circumstances when it received the payments and had long since provided the educational services to the daughter.

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the tuition was never part of the parents’ assets. The decision turned, in large part, on the precise nature of the tuition payments at issue. The parents had used federal Direct PLUS Loans to pay the tuition. However, under that program, the proceeds of the loan were paid directly to the University and never held by the parents. Therefore, the loans were never technically the parents’ assets and never were held by the parents. To hold otherwise, the court concluded, would conflict with and undermine the purposes of the Direct PLUS Loan program. The trustee has not taken an appeal.

You can find the Bankruptcy Court decision here.  You can find the amicus brief here.

We continue to await a decision by the First Circuit in another very significant tuition claw-back case, DeGiacomo v. Sacred Heart University (In re Palladino), No. 17-1334 (1st Cir.). In that case, the Court is expected to rule on the question whether parents received “reasonably equivalent value” for tuition payments they made on behalf of their child. The bankruptcy trustee claims that they did not, because the child and not the parents received the education, and seeks to recover the tuition payments from the University.

© 1998-2018 Wiggin and Dana LLP

This post was written by Aaron Bayer and Benjamin Daniels of Wiggin and Dana LLP.

Back to School: Preparing for Campus Unrest

In the wake of the deadly Charlottesville protests, institutions of higher education are under heightened pressure to prepare their campuses for disruption and unrest.  Many colleges and universities have open campuses, enjoy historic visibility in their communities, and place a high value on free speech, expression, and the exchange of ideas, exposing them to unique challenges in planning for protests and civil disobedience.  As this academic year begins, it is critical that campus administrators equip themselves and their communities to manage and, when appropriate, to take affirmative steps to prevent campus unrest, whether initiated by student groups or third parties.

The proactive development of sound and well-thought out policies that balance the value of speech with the institution’s compelling interests in safety and preventing the disruption of campus operations is the foundation for successful management of these situations.  Now more than ever, it is important, even for institutions that have not experienced significant campus unrest in the past, to develop a model response to campus unrest and determine whether institutional policies permit and support this model.

Institutions should review their policies to determine (1) what procedures are in place for managing and monitoring student protests and demonstrations; and (2) how much authority they have to limit or condition access to their campus by third parties.  Thoughtfully drafted campus facilities use, protest, and demonstration policies can effectively set expectations and establish procedures for regulating picketing, protesting, and demonstrating on campus by students and third parties.  But they are not the only policies that demand attention, review, and coordination.  Other policies that may dictate how and to what extent an institution can control or limit civil disobedience on campus may include:

  • Campus trespass policies;

  • Policies that describe the purpose and use of campus;

  • Facilities use and event policies;

  • Academic freedom and other speech or expression policies;

  • Tabling, bulletin board, leafletting, or chalking policies;

  • Emergency response and other communications policies;

  • Student organization policies;

  • Policies that describe or limit the carrying and use of weapons on campus; and

  • Student codes of conduct.

In reviewing their policies, administrators should consider how they limit access to campus, including the rhetoric used to describe the institution’s values, which groups and individuals can reserve and use delineated spaces, and whether campus streets are publicly accessible or can be limited with regard to pedestrian and automobile traffic.  Institutions should ensure that their facilities use policies contain clear and publicized registration procedures requiring sufficient notice of all pertinent details of a proposed event.  Policies must also permit action to move or shut down an event in the event of an emergency, violation of policy, or disruptive conduct, and to undertake disciplinary and law enforcement action where appropriate.

Any number and configuration of campus constituencies can be affected by regulations on campus speech.  Administrators should be mindful of who their institutional policies are intended to target—students or third parties—and draft their policies to clearly cover only the intended targets.  Administrators should also be aware of unintentional targets, considering, for example, how the policies will apply when a student group brings a third party to campus or when the protesters are alumni.

Institutions should be wary of a one-size-fits-all approach.  While it can be instructive to review other schools’ policies, what works for a large, public institution will almost certainly not work for a small, private institution.  In particular, while public institutions must remain keenly aware of the First Amendment implications of limiting speech on campus, private institutions must be careful that their policies do not inadvertently grant students and third parties “rights” that they are not otherwise due and may be difficult for the institution to support.

Now is the time—even if your academic year has already begun—to examine, revise and coordinate implementation of pertinent policies so that administrators may smoothly, safely, and consistently address campus access, facilities use, and potential unrest as it may develop.

This post was written by  Beth Tyner Jones and Liz LeVan Riley and Rebecca C. Fleishman of  Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.
More analysis at the National Law Review.

U.S. Department of Education Delays Certain Gainful Employment Disclosure Requirements

In its latest action regarding the “Gainful Employment” regulations promulgated under the Obama administration, late on June 30, 2017, the U.S. Department of Education (“the Department”) announced a delay in certain disclosure requirements that were to have taken effect on July 1, 2017. This announcement occurred through Electronic Announcement #106, a pre-publication draft Federal Register notice (which will appear in the Federal Register on July 5, 2017) and an official press release.

The Gainful Employment regulations require all education programs offered by proprietary institutions of higher education, and non-degree programs offered by public and private nonprofit institutions, to meet specific debt-to-earnings measures in order to remain eligible for federal student financial aid. Additionally, the regulations require institutions to provide extensive informational disclosures to students regarding their Gainful Employment programs, and to issue warnings to students when a program is in danger of losing its eligibility for federal student financial aid. As described in a previous alert, the Department announced on June 16, 2017, that it will establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop proposed revisions to the Gainful Employment regulations; however, that prior announcement did not alter the effectiveness of the current regulations.

Through this latest announcement, the Department has now delayed until July 1, 2018, the requirements for institutions to include a link to the required Gainful Employment program disclosure template in all promotional materials, to provide a copy of the required template to all students on an individual basis, and to receive acknowledgements from individual students that they received the template. Importantly, institutions are still required as of July 1, 2017, to incorporate the new Gainful Employment program disclosure template into their website descriptions of educational programs offered.

Please also note that unless an institution submitted a timely notice of intent to appeal its programs’ Gainful Employment measures to the Department in late January, this latest action does not affect the regulatory requirement to issue student warnings for programs in danger of losing federal student financial aid eligibility because of those measures.

This post was written by John R. Przypyszny and Jonathan D. Tarnow of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Illinois: Transgender Locker Room Policy Eludes School District Facing Government Sanctions Under Title IX

An Illinois school district has violated anti-discrimination laws by not allowing a transgender student who identifies as female and is on her high school’s girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls’ locker room, the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) has held.

The OCR released its findings on November 2, 2015, after completing an extensive investigation of a complaint for unlawful discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 filed by a transgender female high school student against the Township High School District 211 in Palatine, Illinois. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. An entity in violation of Title IX may lose some or all of its Title IX funding.

Schools districts, colleges, and private employers are increasingly at risk of transgender discrimination charges or complaints under laws enforced by the OCR, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as these agencies develop their policies on transgender issues.

The EEOC, the DOL, and the DOJ have interpreted Title VII of the Civil Right Act’s prohibitions on sex discrimination to bar employment discrimination based on gender identity.

On the employment front, in the seven months between October 2014 and April 2015, EEOC received 505 charges based on sexual orientation discrimination and 112 charges based on gender identity. Moreover, the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2012-2016 includes the investigation and enforcement of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) sex stereotyping claims .

Further, effective April 2015, the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs requires federal contractors subject to Executive Law 11246 to allow transgender employees to use the restroom and other facilities consistent with their gender identity (See article DOL Releases Regulations Extending Protections to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Employees, Applicants).

Finally, the OSHA guidelines require all employers under its jurisdiction to provide a “safe and healthy working environment for all employees” and transgender employees “should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.”

OSHA recommends that companies should implement written policies to ensure that all employees have “prompt access to appropriate sanitary facilities.” The agency’s best practices guide also recommends providing options from which a transgender employee may choose. These can include single-occupancy gender-neutral facilities and the use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls (See article Restroom Access Should Be Consistent with Employee’s Gender Identity, OSHA Says).

Background

The Township High School District 211 denied a transgender female student access to three separate girls’ locker rooms (“LR”) (including the Physical Education (“PE”) LR, the PE Swim LR, and the Athletics LR). The Student alleged the District discriminated against her based on sex by denying her access to the girls’ locker rooms because of her gender identity and gender non-conformity.

OCR Decision

The OCR found the District violated Title IX for excluding the Student from participation in and denying her the benefits of its education program, providing services to her in a different manner, subjecting her to different rules of behavior, and subjecting her to different treatment on the basis of sex.

“The evidence shows that as a result of the District’s denial of access to the girls LRs, Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but also has experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment.”

Other than access to the female locker rooms, the OCR found the District treated the Student consistently with her gender identity, including identifying her by her female name and with female pronouns, providing her with full access to girls’ restrooms and allowing her to participate in girls’ sports.

Alternatives Not Acceptable

The District argued it offered the Student alternative changing options, such as permitting her to change with several female friends in an alternative restroom closer to the PE gym and offering her another restroom near the Swim LR.

The OCR found that the alternatives “continued or would continue to exclude [the Student] from the girls’ locker rooms and set her apart from her female classmates and teammates,” particularly as some of the proposed alternative facilities were not comparable to those provided for other girls.

For example, unlike the other female students who used the PE class swim unit, the Student had access only to a rinse shower and was not able to dry her hair because there was no electrical outlet. Furthermore, by not having access to the PE locker room, she was subjected to stigma and different treatment, OCR said, because she occasionally had been late to class or missed class announcements that were made in the girls’ locker room.

Finally, as a result of being denied access to the girls Athletics LR, the Student felt excluded from the team because she missed the informal huddle in the LR before matches, locker room “girl talk,” and the female bonding in the LR. According, the OCR concluded the District denied the Student’s Title IX rights.

Privacy Concerns Unavailing

While acknowledging that it denied the Student access to the female locker rooms, the District argued that it had to balance the Student’s rights and interests with two distinct privacy concerns of other female students:

  • the need to protect female students from “being observed in a state of undress by a biologically male individual,” and

  • the “inappropriateness of allowing young female students to view a biologically naked male in the locker room in a state of undress.”

The OCR found both of these arguments unpersuasive as the District had installed five showers with privacy curtains and five restroom stalls in the girls PE LR, but had not provided private changing areas in the other two LRs.

“The District’s installation and maintenance of privacy curtains in one locker room go a long distance toward achieving such a nondiscriminatory alternative because providing sufficient privacy curtain access to accommodate any students who wish to be assured of privacy while changing would allow for protection of all students’ rights in this context. Those female students wishing to protect their own private bodies from exposure to being observed in a state of undress by other girls in the locker rooms, including transgender girls, could change behind a privacy curtain.”

Given the Student’s willingness to change privately, the OCR said, the District could have provided equal access to all three LRs if it installed additional privacy curtains for any student that wanted privacy.

Takeaways

Federal government agencies are increasingly examining the purported protections afforded to transgender students and employees, in both the public and private sectors. How to handle transgender issues is still a work-in-progress for the agencies and the entities they regulate. In this case, despite the District’s accommodations and options to provide equal treatment to the Student in all respects other than access to the Locker Room, the OCR nevertheless held its efforts were insufficient. Moreover, states also have laws protecting LGBT individuals (See article Utah Governor Signs Landmark LGBT and Religious Expression Anti-Discrimination Bill).

The following steps can help lower the risk of being under government scrutiny:

  1. closely review and revise EEO (equal employment opportunity), harassment, and transgender policies;

  2. ensure proper sensitivity training of administrators, faculty, and students to foster diverse and inclusive primary, secondary school, and campus environments to avoid stigmatizing transgender students; and

  3. ensure that accommodations for transgender students and employees provide equal access in all respects, as well as balance privacy concerns.

Because of the complexities involved in this area, school districts, colleges, and private sector employers would be well-served to regularly review their policies and practices with counsel to ensure they address specific organizational needs effectively and comply with applicable law.

Article By Michelle E. Phillips, Bethany Swaton Wagner & Gregg E. Clifton of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Senate Passes the Every Child Achieves Act to Replace No Child Left Behind

Recently, the Senate passed the Every Child Achieves Act to replace No Child Left Behind, which was seven years past the reauthorization date. This bipartisan agreement was shepherded through the Senate by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

What the Every Child Achieves Act Does

  • Strengthens state and local control – The bill recognizes that states, working with school districts, teachers, and others, have the responsibility for creating accountability systems to ensure all students are learning and prepared for success. These accountability systems will be state-designed but must meet minimum federal parameters, including ensuring all students and subgroups of students are included in the accountability system, disaggregating student achievement data, and establishing challenging academic standards for all students. The federal government is prohibited from determining or approving state standards.

  • Maintains important information for parents, teachers, and communities – The bill maintains the federally required two annual tests in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, as well as science tests given three times between grades 3 and 12. These important measures of student achievement ensure that parents know how their children are performing and help teachers support students who are struggling to meet state standards. A pilot program will allow states additional flexibility to experiment with innovative assessment systems. The bill also maintains annual data reporting, which provides valuable information about whether all students are achieving, including low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English learners.

  • Ends federal test-based accountability – The bill ends the federal test-based accountability system of No Child Left Behind, restoring to states the responsibility for determining how to use federally required tests for accountability purposes. States must include these tests in their accountability systems, but will be able to determine the weight of those tests in their systems. States will also be required to include graduation rates, another measure of academic success for elementary and middle schools, English proficiency for English learners. States may also include other measures of student and school performance in their accountability systems in order to provide teachers, parents, and other stakeholders with a more accurate determination of school performance.

  • Maintains important protections for federal taxpayer dollars –The bill maintains important fiscal protections of federal dollars, including maintenance of effort requirements, which help ensure that federal dollars supplement state and local education dollars, with additional flexibility for school districts in meeting those requirements.

  • Helps states fix the lowest-performing schools – The bill includes federal grants to states and school districts to help improve low-performing schools that are identified by the state accountability systems. School districts will be responsible for designing evidence-based interventions for low-performing schools, with technical assistance from the states, and the federal government is prohibited from mandating, prescribing, or defining the specific steps school districts and states must take to improve these schools.

  • Helps states support teachers –The bill provides resources to states and school districts to implement activities to support teachers, principals, and other educators, including allowable uses of funds for high quality induction programs for new teachers, ongoing rigorous professional development opportunities for educators, and programs to recruit new educators to the profession. The bill allows, but does not require, states to develop and implement teacher evaluation systems.

  • Reaffirms the states’ role in determining education standards – The bill affirms that states decide what academic standards they will adopt, without interference from Washington, D.C. The federal government may not mandate or incentivize states to adopt or maintain any particular set of standards, including Common Core. States will be free to decide what academic standards they will maintain in their states.

ARTICLE BY Bruce H. Stern of Stark & Stark

COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK

Supreme Court to Again Review Higher Education Affirmative Action Case

In a week full of front-page news, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to again review the appropriateness of the University of Texas at Austin’s race-based admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

The Supreme Court first reviewed the school’s consideration of race as a component of its admission process almost a year ago and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration.  Upon re-review the Fifth Circuit again held the University’s practice of using race a factor in its admissions decisions was constitutional. Fisher filed an appeal arguing the Fifth Circuit did not follow the Supreme Court’s direction when conducting the subsequent review.

While the ultimate outcome of this case will certainly impact affirmative action programs of institutions of higher education, its effects on other types of non-admissions affirmative action programs, such as though enforced by OFCCP, remains unknown.

ARTICLE BY Laura Mitchell of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Law Prohibiting Use of Race in College Admissions

Barnes Burgandy Logo

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that upholds a Michigan law prohibiting the use of race as a factor in admissions to public collegesand universities. In Schuette v. BAMN, Case No. 12-682 (argued Oct. 15, 2013) the high court reversed a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the voter-enacted state constitutional amendment referred to as “Proposal 2” or Article I Section 26. Although the court’s 6-2 opinion stated “this case is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education,” the decision is likely to influence other states to adopt similar constitutional bans on affirmative action in state-funded higher education.

Since 2003, Michigan has provided a venue for legal challenges to affirmative actionprograms in education. In that year, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of race-based admission policies of both the University of Michigan’s undergraduate college and its graduate law school. The outcomes of these cases were mixed. In Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 234 (2003) the court struck down the undergraduate admission policy as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. In contrast, the court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) that the school’s more limited admissions policy for its law school was constitutionally permissible. Following those decisions, a number of states, including Texas, California, Oklahoma, Florida and Washington, have adopted constitutional amendments or other laws that prohibit affirmative action in school admissions and public employment.

In 2006, Michigan voters approved the following amendment to the state constitution by a margin of 58-42 percent: “The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” In a 8-7 decision issued in November 2012, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held this language as unconstitutional because Proposal 2 placed “special burdens on minority interests” by targeting a program that “inures primarily to the benefit of the minority.”

In Justice Kennedy’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the court considered whether authority existed to overturn a constitutional amendment adopted by a state’s ballot initiative. In order to do so, and based on the appellate court’s strong reliance on Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) the court would be able to overturn a ballot initiative that made it “more difficult for certain racial minorities than for other groups” to “achieve legislation that is in their interest.” This expansive reading, Justice Kennedy reasoned, could not conform to principles of equal protection because courts should not be required to declare which political policies serve the interests of a group defined in racial terms. Justice Kennedy cautioned: “…in a society in which those [racial] lines are becoming more blurred, the attempt to define race-based categories also raises serious questions of its own. Government action that classifies individuals on the basis of race is inherently suspect and carries the danger of perpetuating the very racial divisions the polity seeks to transcend.”

This significant decision upholds states’ rights to enact constitutional amendments by voter ballot initiatives. The broader implications of the Schuette decision are unclear. However, the outcome confirms public universities and government employers have a vested and ongoing interest in the changing shape of affirmative action policies.

Article By:

Kenneth J. Yerkes
John T.L. Koenig
David B. Ritter
William A. Nolan
Eric H. J. Stahlhut
Mark S. Kittaka
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP