Petitioner
Larry Zobrest, et al.
Respondent
Catalina Foothills School District
Petitioner's Claim
The government can pay to provide a sign language interpreter for a deaf student attending a parochial school without violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William B. Ball
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John C. Richardson
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 June 1993
Decision
Reversed lower court rulings and held that the provision of a sign language interpreter in a parochial school did not violate First Amendment prohibitionsagainst the establishment of a state religion.
Significance
This narrow 5-4 decision was one in a long line of cases in which the SupremeCourt struggled to strike the proper balance between permissible and impermissible state aid to parochial schools. The closeness of the decision indicated that the issue would continue to be debated in the future.
Historical Background
The U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the right of parents to send their children to parochial, or church-run, schools. However, the Court has acknowledged that there are limits to the type of assistance that states can provideto these schools and their students. Too much aid, or the wrong type of aid,can be challenged on the basis of the First Amendment's Establishment Clauseprohibiting the establishment of a religion by the state. In numerous cases over the decades, the Court has struggled to define the limits of state aid toreligious education. In some instances, it has issued bizarre or seemingly contradictory rulings. When the Court determined that a state could loan textbooks to religious schools, but not maps, an exasperated Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was heard to remark, "What about atlases, or books of maps?" It was in this atmosphere of unclear boundaries that Zobrest v. Catalina FoothillsSchool District was played out in 1993.
The Facts of the Case
Larry Zobrest, a deaf high school student in Arizona, requested that his school district provide him with a sign language interpreter as mandated under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The school district declined, on the advice of the county attorney, claiming that such a provisionwould violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Arizona's attorney general concurred in this opinion, so Zobrest and his parents filed an action in U.S. District Court. Before the case was heard,both parties agreed that the provision for sign language instruction was in fact mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that theschool district would have supplied the interpreter if Zobrest had attendeda non-religious school. But Zobrest and his parents disputed the claim that the aid they were seeking violated the separation of church and state and asked for reimbursement from the state for the cost of hiring their own sign language interpreter. The school district filed a motion for summary judgment onits claim that such aid violated the U.S. Constitution.
The Lower Courts Rule
The judge for the U.S. district court granted the Catalina Foothills School District's motion for summary judgment. It agreed with the district that suchaid would promote a particular religious agenda at public expense and hence violate the establishment clause. The Zobrests then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's ruling. It held thatthe actions the Zobrests had requested would have represented an unconstitutional application of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Zobrests next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court Rules
On 18 June 1993, the Supreme Court issued its decision. Along narrow 5-4 lines, it reversed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that the First Amendment's establishment clause did not bar the Catalina Foothills School Districtfrom providing Zobrest with an interpreter. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the five justice majority, with Justice Blackmun penning a dissent that was joined, in whole or in part, by three other justices.
The provision of a sign language interpreter, observed Chief Justice Rehnquist, was not an act of establishment of religion but "part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as handicapped." If an individual who is handicapped, in this case Larry Zobrest,chooses to attend a parochial school, Rehnquist went on to write, "we hold that the Establishment Clause does not prevent the school district from furnishing him with a sign-language interpreter there in order to facilitate his education."
The majority's opinion hinged in part on its contention that the sign language interpreter would in no way advance the school's religious agenda. "Nothingin this record suggests that a sign language interpreter would do more thanaccurately interpret whatever material is presented to the class as a whole,"Rehnquist wrote.
Dissenting Opinions
Writing in dissent, Justice Blackmun contended that the Supreme Court shouldnot have even weighed in on the constitutional questions in the case, since the issue of whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requiresthe school district to provide an interpreter at a private school was still in doubt--and would have rendered the larger questions moot. On the issue of separation of church and state, Blackmun was unequivocal in asserting that theuse of a public employee by a religious institution to promote a religious message was in violation of the Constitution. Blackmun wrote:
Disposition of the Case
James Zobrest had already completed high school by the time the Supreme Courtruled in his favor. However, the Catalina Foothills School District agreed to reimburse his parents for the cost of hiring their own sign language interpreter.
Impact
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District was a loss for those whofavor a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Future decisions will reveal whether this case laid down a clear markerfor states in determining what type of aid they can provide to religious schools.
Related Cases
The Lemon Test
The Lemon test, named for the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, uses a three-part test to determine if laws or government activities are considered unconstitutional. For instance, to determine if parochial school aid isconstitutional, the test asks if the aid is for a religious purpose, promotesa religion, or requires excessive entanglement between government and religion. The importance of using the Lemon test to determine the constitutionalityof parochial school aid can be seen in the impact that the result has on thelarge number of U.S. citizens who send their children to private schools.
At the time the Lemon test was adopted by the Court in 1971, there were 36 states considering measures to help parochial schools, according to a 10 July 1971, article in The New Republic. The article went on to state that 25percent of Rhode Island's elementary-age children were enrolled in private schools and that 95 percent of those were parochial. In Pennsylvania, the article states, 20 percent of elementary pupils were in private school with 98 ofthose parochial institutions.
Sources
"Parochial School Aid."The New Republic, 10 July 1971.
Larry Zobrest, et al.
Respondent
Catalina Foothills School District
Petitioner's Claim
The government can pay to provide a sign language interpreter for a deaf student attending a parochial school without violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William B. Ball
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John C. Richardson
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 June 1993
Decision
Reversed lower court rulings and held that the provision of a sign language interpreter in a parochial school did not violate First Amendment prohibitionsagainst the establishment of a state religion.
Significance
This narrow 5-4 decision was one in a long line of cases in which the SupremeCourt struggled to strike the proper balance between permissible and impermissible state aid to parochial schools. The closeness of the decision indicated that the issue would continue to be debated in the future.
Historical Background
The U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the right of parents to send their children to parochial, or church-run, schools. However, the Court has acknowledged that there are limits to the type of assistance that states can provideto these schools and their students. Too much aid, or the wrong type of aid,can be challenged on the basis of the First Amendment's Establishment Clauseprohibiting the establishment of a religion by the state. In numerous cases over the decades, the Court has struggled to define the limits of state aid toreligious education. In some instances, it has issued bizarre or seemingly contradictory rulings. When the Court determined that a state could loan textbooks to religious schools, but not maps, an exasperated Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was heard to remark, "What about atlases, or books of maps?" It was in this atmosphere of unclear boundaries that Zobrest v. Catalina FoothillsSchool District was played out in 1993.
The Facts of the Case
Larry Zobrest, a deaf high school student in Arizona, requested that his school district provide him with a sign language interpreter as mandated under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The school district declined, on the advice of the county attorney, claiming that such a provisionwould violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Arizona's attorney general concurred in this opinion, so Zobrest and his parents filed an action in U.S. District Court. Before the case was heard,both parties agreed that the provision for sign language instruction was in fact mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that theschool district would have supplied the interpreter if Zobrest had attendeda non-religious school. But Zobrest and his parents disputed the claim that the aid they were seeking violated the separation of church and state and asked for reimbursement from the state for the cost of hiring their own sign language interpreter. The school district filed a motion for summary judgment onits claim that such aid violated the U.S. Constitution.
The Lower Courts Rule
The judge for the U.S. district court granted the Catalina Foothills School District's motion for summary judgment. It agreed with the district that suchaid would promote a particular religious agenda at public expense and hence violate the establishment clause. The Zobrests then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's ruling. It held thatthe actions the Zobrests had requested would have represented an unconstitutional application of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Zobrests next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court Rules
On 18 June 1993, the Supreme Court issued its decision. Along narrow 5-4 lines, it reversed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that the First Amendment's establishment clause did not bar the Catalina Foothills School Districtfrom providing Zobrest with an interpreter. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the five justice majority, with Justice Blackmun penning a dissent that was joined, in whole or in part, by three other justices.
The provision of a sign language interpreter, observed Chief Justice Rehnquist, was not an act of establishment of religion but "part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as handicapped." If an individual who is handicapped, in this case Larry Zobrest,chooses to attend a parochial school, Rehnquist went on to write, "we hold that the Establishment Clause does not prevent the school district from furnishing him with a sign-language interpreter there in order to facilitate his education."
The majority's opinion hinged in part on its contention that the sign language interpreter would in no way advance the school's religious agenda. "Nothingin this record suggests that a sign language interpreter would do more thanaccurately interpret whatever material is presented to the class as a whole,"Rehnquist wrote.
Dissenting Opinions
Writing in dissent, Justice Blackmun contended that the Supreme Court shouldnot have even weighed in on the constitutional questions in the case, since the issue of whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requiresthe school district to provide an interpreter at a private school was still in doubt--and would have rendered the larger questions moot. On the issue of separation of church and state, Blackmun was unequivocal in asserting that theuse of a public employee by a religious institution to promote a religious message was in violation of the Constitution. Blackmun wrote:
Today, the Court unnecessarily addresses an important constitutional issue, disregarding longstanding principles of constitutional adjudication. In so doing,the Court holds that placement in a parochial school classroom of a public employee whose duty consists of relaying religious messages does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I disagree both with the Court's decision to reach this question and with its disposition on the merits.In a separate dissent, Justice O'Connor agreed with Blackmun's assertion that the Court should have refused to even address the constitutionalissue. She argued for vacating the lower court's decision on statutory grounds.
Disposition of the Case
James Zobrest had already completed high school by the time the Supreme Courtruled in his favor. However, the Catalina Foothills School District agreed to reimburse his parents for the cost of hiring their own sign language interpreter.
Impact
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District was a loss for those whofavor a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Future decisions will reveal whether this case laid down a clear markerfor states in determining what type of aid they can provide to religious schools.
Related Cases
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).
- Reno v. Catholic School Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993).
- Shalala v. Schaeffer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
The Lemon Test
The Lemon test, named for the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, uses a three-part test to determine if laws or government activities are considered unconstitutional. For instance, to determine if parochial school aid isconstitutional, the test asks if the aid is for a religious purpose, promotesa religion, or requires excessive entanglement between government and religion. The importance of using the Lemon test to determine the constitutionalityof parochial school aid can be seen in the impact that the result has on thelarge number of U.S. citizens who send their children to private schools.
At the time the Lemon test was adopted by the Court in 1971, there were 36 states considering measures to help parochial schools, according to a 10 July 1971, article in The New Republic. The article went on to state that 25percent of Rhode Island's elementary-age children were enrolled in private schools and that 95 percent of those were parochial. In Pennsylvania, the article states, 20 percent of elementary pupils were in private school with 98 ofthose parochial institutions.
Sources
"Parochial School Aid."The New Republic, 10 July 1971.
User Comments Add a comment…
2 months ago
The deaf student who was denied a sign language interpreter at Salpointe High School in Tucson, Arizona is named James Zobrest. Larry Zobrest, as mentioned in the Facts of the Cases Section, is his father.