Azərbaycanca
Deutsch
English
Français
Русский
ภาษาไทย
Українська
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a school district created with boundaries that matched that of a religious community – in this case, the Satmar community of Kiryas Joel, New York.[1] The case was argued by Nathan Lewin on behalf of Kiryas Joel, Julie Mereson on behalf of the State of New York, and Jay Worona on behalf of the respondents.
| Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued March 30, 1994 Decided June 27, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District, Petitioner v. Louis Grumet, et al. |
| Citations | 512 U.S. 687 (more) 114 S. Ct. 2481; 129 L. Ed. 2d 546; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4830; 62 U.S.L.W. 4665; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4818; 94 Daily Journal DAR 8917; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 359 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Grumet v. New York Educ. Dept., 151 Misc. 2d 60, 579 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Sup. Ct. 1992); affirmed sub. nom., Grumet v. Bd. of Educ. of the Kiryas Joel Vil. School Dist., 187 A.D.2d 16, 592 N.Y.S.2d 123 (App. Div., 3d Dept. 1992); affirmed, 81 N.Y.2d 518, 601 N.Y.S.2d 61, 618 N.E.2d 94 (1993); cert. granted, 510 U.S. 989 (1993). |
| Holding | |
| A New York statute that carved out a school district that followed village lines, which village was almost entirely composed of members of one religious group, was held to violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter (parts I, II-B, II-C, III), joined by Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg |
| Plurality | Souter (parts II (introduction), II-A), joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Blackmun, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., amend. I | |
Opinion of the court
The court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, held that the creation of a school district unit of government designed to coincide with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group constitutes an unconstitutional aid to religion. Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion": "There is more than a fine line between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprising people who share a common religious faith, and the forced separation that occurs when the government draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples' faith. In creating the district in question, New York crossed that line."
Dissent
Justice Scalia, in his dissent, acknowledged that the residents of this district are Satmar Hasidic Jews, but noted of the Satmar community:
[A]ll its residents also wear unusual dress, have unusual civic customs, and have not much to do with people who are culturally different from them ... On what basis does Justice Souter conclude that it is the theological distinctiveness rather than the cultural distinctiveness that was the basis for New York State's decision? The normal assumption would be that it was the latter, since it was not theology but dress, language, and cultural alienation that posed the educational problem for the children.
Scalia argued that the Satmar school district aided the Satmars as a culture rather than a religion, and thus did not constitute impermissible aid to a religious group. The majority, Scalia asserted, would "laud this humanitarian legislation if all of the distinctiveness of the students of Kiryas Joel were attributable to the fact that their parents were nonreligious commune dwellers, or American Indians, or Gypsies," and concluded that "creation of a special, one-culture school district for the benefit of those children would pose no problem. The neutrality demanded by the Religion Clauses requires the same indulgence towards cultural characteristics that are accompanied by religious belief."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 512
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- "Transcript of Oral Argument: Kiryas Joel v. Grumet" (PDF).
External links
- ^ Text of Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Author: www.NiNa.Az
Publication date:
wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library, article, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games, mobile, phone, android, ios, apple, mobile phone, samsung, iphone, xiomi, xiaomi, redmi, honor, oppo, nokia, sonya, mi, pc, web, computer
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v Grumet 512 U S 687 1994 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a school district created with boundaries that matched that of a religious community in this case the Satmar community of Kiryas Joel New York 1 The case was argued by Nathan Lewin on behalf of Kiryas Joel Julie Mereson on behalf of the State of New York and Jay Worona on behalf of the respondents Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v GrumetSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 30 1994 Decided June 27 1994Full case nameBoard of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District Petitioner v Louis Grumet et al Citations512 U S 687 more 114 S Ct 2481 129 L Ed 2d 546 1994 U S LEXIS 4830 62 U S L W 4665 94 Cal Daily Op Service 4818 94 Daily Journal DAR 8917 8 Fla L Weekly Fed S 359Case historyPriorGrumet v New York Educ Dept 151 Misc 2d 60 579 N Y S 2d 1004 Sup Ct 1992 affirmed sub nom Grumet v Bd of Educ of the Kiryas Joel Vil School Dist 187 A D 2d 16 592 N Y S 2d 123 App Div 3d Dept 1992 affirmed 81 N Y 2d 518 601 N Y S 2d 61 618 N E 2d 94 1993 cert granted 510 U S 989 1993 HoldingA New York statute that carved out a school district that followed village lines which village was almost entirely composed of members of one religious group was held to violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Harry Blackmun John P Stevens Sandra Day O Connor Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy David Souter Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgCase opinionsMajoritySouter parts I II B II C III joined by Blackmun Stevens O Connor GinsburgPluralitySouter parts II introduction II A joined by Blackmun Stevens GinsburgConcurrenceBlackmunConcurrenceStevens joined by Blackmun GinsburgConcurrenceO ConnorConcurrenceKennedyDissentScalia joined by Rehnquist ThomasLaws appliedU S Const amend IOpinion of the courtThe court in an opinion by Justice Souter held that the creation of a school district unit of government designed to coincide with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group constitutes an unconstitutional aid to religion Souter concluded that government should not prefer one religion to another or religion to irreligion There is more than a fine line between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprising people who share a common religious faith and the forced separation that occurs when the government draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples faith In creating the district in question New York crossed that line DissentJustice Scalia in his dissent acknowledged that the residents of this district are Satmar Hasidic Jews but noted of the Satmar community A ll its residents also wear unusual dress have unusual civic customs and have not much to do with people who are culturally different from them On what basis does Justice Souter conclude that it is the theological distinctiveness rather than the cultural distinctiveness that was the basis for New York State s decision The normal assumption would be that it was the latter since it was not theology but dress language and cultural alienation that posed the educational problem for the children Scalia argued that the Satmar school district aided the Satmars as a culture rather than a religion and thus did not constitute impermissible aid to a religious group The majority Scalia asserted would laud this humanitarian legislation if all of the distinctiveness of the students of Kiryas Joel were attributable to the fact that their parents were nonreligious commune dwellers or American Indians or Gypsies and concluded that creation of a special one culture school district for the benefit of those children would pose no problem The neutrality demanded by the Religion Clauses requires the same indulgence towards cultural characteristics that are accompanied by religious belief See alsoList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 512 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist CourtReferences Transcript of Oral Argument Kiryas Joel v Grumet PDF External links Text of Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v Grumet 512 U S 687 1994 is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio