Supreme Court Cases

Religion

High school student Joshua Davey wanted to go on to college. Like many kids his age, he was looking for financial help to do so. He applied for an academically-competitive Promise Scholarship, a fund sponsored by taxpayers in his home state of Washington. He soon got the good news that he had won the scholarship. His happiness was short-lived, however. The state took back the money when it learned of his intended major, theology. The Washington state constitution, like that of 36 other states, specifically bans the use of public money to fund religious instruction. Davey chose to forfeit the money and enroll in a private Christian college.
Davey, however, believed his First Amendment rights to free religious exercise were being violated. If the state of Washington provided college financial aid to students pursuing secular areas of study, Davey reasoned, then it should provide that same money to students pursuing religious courses of study. He eventually took his case to the US Supreme Court.
The Court disagreed with Davey and ruled that states could deny public scholarship money to students being trained for the ministry. The Court held that states have a long-standing interest in keeping the government distinct from religion.
The Court determined that there was no infringement on free exercise because individuals were still free to pursue their desired courses of study and religious careers: “It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite…It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction.”


Minority

In 2006, Congress amassed a 15,000 page record supporting its judgment that minority voters in certain places needed specific protections to be able to participate equally in the political process. The Supreme Court today held that Congress must now return to the drawing board to reconsider which jurisdictions in the country should be covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court declined the request by Shelby County, Alabama to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires some states and localities to illustrate that proposed changes to the voting process don’t suppress minority voters before those changes can take effect. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself, which has been upheld in four previous challenges.
Today’s ruling conflicts with our deeply held value in America that every individual has the sacred right to vote. Our country is stronger when more—not fewer—people participate in the political process.
Today will be remembered as a step backwards in the march towards equal rights.
We must now confront the poison of voter suppression in the places where it is most intense without our most effective antidote.  Congress must step in to aggressively and expeditiously prevent an onslaught of attacks on the right to vote. The ink will barely be dry on this decision before people will start hatching plans to get between Americans and the ballot box.
Congress has the power to make good on the promise that every American should have the right to vote, and it must exercise that power forthwith.

School system

Powell v. National Board of Medical Examiners
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Decided April 7, 2004

 Summary: Learning disabled student sued the NBME and the University of Connecticut after she failed the Step 1 Medical Licensing Exam three times and was dismissed from medical school. Plaintiff requested a waiver of the Step 1 Exam requirement from UConn which they refused and was subsequently denied accommodations of extended time on the exam by the NBME. The Second Circuit held that Powell failed to show that, even if she was disabled, she was otherwise qualified to continue to be a medical student at UConn; noting that she had a background of educational difficulty and an average to low-average IQ. The court also held that there was no proof UConn discriminated because they had provided extensive accommodations to plaintiff but were not required to offer accommodations that fundamentally altered the nature of the service, program or activity. Finally, the court found that based on the limited evidence submitted, the NBME followed its standard procedure in denying Powell's request for accommodations.