|
Agostini v. Felton,
521 U.S. 203 (1997)
Author: Sam Biers
Facts: Congress enacted
Title I of Ed. Act (1965) to provide full educational opportunity to every
child. Following the lengthy adjudication process Bd modified its Title I
policies and rather than provide services at sectarian schools, provide services
at public school sites; i.e. mobile units located at leased sites or parking
lots near sectarian schools. Bd also offered computer instruction on premises
of parochial schools b/c no on site instruction was needed. As a result of
Aguilar the Bd incurred $100 mil in costs to provide computer aided
instruction, leased sites, and mobile units, and thus reducing the Title I money
available to eligible sectarian students.
Issue(s): Whether the
Aguilar decision has become so eroded by subsequent Est Cl cases that it is
no longer good law, and whether Petitioners are entitled under FRCP 60(b)(5) to
be relieved of the injunction?
Holding: Aguilar is
bad law; Injunction is lifted; and federally funded program that provides
supplemental remedial instruction to disadvantaged kids on a neutral basis is
not invalid under Est Cl when the instruction given by Govt E’ees on the
sectarian premises so long as monitoring and religious govt buffers safeguards
are in place.
Procedure: Prior case
Aguilar v. Felton 1978: Resp’s here sued Bd for declaratory and Injunctive
relief claiming Title I violated Est Cl. D Ct granted Summary to Bd. Ct of App
Reversed. USSCt Affirmed on Excessive Entanglement issue: Est Cl prohibits NY
from sending public teachers to parochial schools to provide remedial education
under mandate by Congress. On remand D.Ct ordered permanent injunction banning
public teachers, etc from providing services to kids at sectarian schools. 12
yrs later, while under that injunction, same parties Mot for relief from that
order b/c of subsequent S.Ct. Decisions. D Ct denied Mot; Ct of App Affirmed;
U.S.S.Ct Reversed Aguilar and w/ Instructions to vacate Injunction FRCP
60(b)(5).
Rule(s): 1st
Amend; FRCP 60(b)(5); 20 U.S.C. §6301 (Title I).
Rationale: Pets did not
establish a significant change in factual conditions sufficient to warrant
modification. Kiryas’ by itself does not provide basis for determining
Est Cl law has changed, majority only opined for reconsideration of Aguilar.
The 3 Ball
assumptions: 1) any public E’ee working on sectarian premises is presumed to
teach religion; 2) presence of Govt E’ee on premises of sectarian property
created a symbolic union of church and state; 3) any and all public aid that
directly aids educational functions at religious schools finances religion; and
1 Aguilar assumption: 1) b/c Govt E’ees teach on premises of religious
schools, to avoid excessive Govt entanglement, under Title I requires close
monitoring as a buffer, have been undermined.
First, Govt E’ee’s presence
teaching at religious institutions does not create presumption of inculcation of
religion to students or constitute a symbolic union. Zorbest
Second, not all Govt aid to
religious schools is invalid. Thus, there is no effect of religious
indoctrination or advancement of religion based on these premises. Witters
Not all entanglements have
the effect of advancing or restricting religion. Entanglements must be
excessive before held invalid under Est Cl.
DISSENT: In repudiating
Aguilar and Ball the result is to authorize direct state aid to
religious institutions on a grand scale in violation of Est Cl.
Pl’s A: (Pets) The
excessive cost of complying with the injunction constitutes a significant
factual change warranting modification of the order. Two significant legal
decisions have issued where majority of U.S. S.Ct held Aguilar is no
longer consistent with current Est Cl principles.
|
