英语下周合成版_第1页
英语下周合成版_第2页
英语下周合成版_第3页
英语下周合成版_第4页
英语下周合成版_第5页
已阅读5页,还剩22页未读 继续免费阅读

下载本文档

版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领

文档简介

1、UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONACurtis ACOSTA, et al.V.John HUPPENTHAL, et al.HUANG LINLIN(Wendy)& LIANG JINGWEN(Ann) from group HiroNo. CV 10-623-TUC-AWT2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37408Parties Facts Issue & Holding ReasoningDispositionParties Plaintiffs: Curtis ACOSTA, et al. De

2、fendants: John HUPPENTHAL, et al.Facts (background) Arizona Revised Statutes15-112:1.promote the overthrow of the United States government;2.promote resentment toward a race or class of people;3.are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group;4.advocate ethnic solidarity instead of th

3、e treatment of pupils as individuals. Facts (background)Arizona Revised Statutes15-112come into compliance with the statute in 60 daysten percent of the monthly state aid Facts (background)First findingSecond findingALILawsuitPlaintiff:Ten MAS teachersThe director of MAS2 TUSD studentsEqual protecti

4、onFree speechFreedom of associationSubstantivedue processPlaintiff-students-free speech and vagueness2010.12.302011,7.152011.7.222011.12.27vaguenessmotion and cross-motionTUSDS “MAS” is in violation of 15-112 15-112 (A)(2)(3)(4)court 1. promoting resentment towards white people; 2.advocated Latino s

5、olidarity over the treatment of pupils as individuals 3.was primarily designed for LatinopupilsIssue Is15-112 constitutional or unconstitutional?Holding 1.The statute does not violate Plaintiffs right to speak freely on school grounds. 2.Neither15-112(A)(1) nor 15-112(A)(2) is facially overbroad. 3.

6、15-112(A)(3) is facially overbroad. 4.15-112(A)(4) is not unconstitutionally overbroad. 5.In conclusion, there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to Plaintiffs First Amendment and vagueness claims.Free speech rights Direct 1st Amendmentspeak freely Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty.

7、Sch. Dist. (1969) Indirect 1st Amendmentreceive information Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch.Dist. (1998).A. 15-112 Does Not Implicate Plaintiffs Right to SpeakFreely in the Classroom.TDB Tucson Grp., LLC v.City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). Ariz. Dept of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. (Ariz. 200

8、8)Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) The CourtSpeak freely on school groundB. 15-112 Implicates Plaintiffs Right to Receive Information.Restrict the right to receive informationThe scope of the rightIsland Trees Union Free School District v.Pico (1982).Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)Monteiro v.

9、Tempe Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1998)Pratt v. Ind. School District No. 831 (8th Cir. 1982)Zykan v. Warsaw Comty. Sch. Corp. (7th Cir. 1980) Virgil v. Sch. Bd. of Columbia Cnty. (11th Cir. 1989)Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2000)Island Trees Union Free School District v

10、.Pico (1982).schoollibraryThe right of receive informationRemove booksHazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)School curriculumHazelwood TestLimitation on curriculum which is related to legitimate pedagogical concernsStudents newspaperMonteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1998)A stu

11、dents right to receive information exists not only in the library, but in the classroom as well.Pratt v. Ind. School District No. 831 (8th Cir. 1982)conclusionsupportVirgil v. Sch. Bd. of Columbia Cnty. (11th Cir. 1989)Zykan v. Warsaw Comty. Sch. Corp. (7th Cir. 1980) Downs v. Los Angeles Unified Sc

12、hool District (9th Cir. 2000)DownsSpeak for the governmentThis caseVindicate passive right to expose to information and ideasVS.Free speech rights speak freely receive information conclusionscrutinyC. Whether 15-112 is facially OverbroadOverbreadth Doctrine The doctrine holding that if a statute is

13、so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect even if it also prohibits acts that may legitimately be forbidden. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine to invalidate a number of laws, including those that would disallow pea

14、ceful picketing or require loyalty oaths.- Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)Overbreadth Analysisthe scope of the challenged statutethe states own authoritative constructions of the statuteThe court should evaluate both the ambiguous and unambiguous scope of the enactment.including the states own

15、implementation and interpretation of the statute.The primary question is-whether the statutes limitations are reasonably related to the goal of reducing racism at the schools.1. 15-112(A)(1) & 15-112(A)(2) Issue: the meaning of “promote” Definition “to contribute to the growth, enlargement, or p

16、rosperity of,” and also as to “further” or “encourage.” -Websters Third New Intl Dictionary(2002).Plaintiffs “- impermissibly broadens the statute to cover material that only incidentally causes the targeted sentiment.”Defendants “permitted the historical (objective) instruction of oppression that m

17、ay, as a natural but unintended consequence, result in racial resentment or ethnic solidarity. However, teaching oppression objectively is quite different than actively presenting material in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner.” Court not facially overbroad 2. 15-112(A)(3) (1)The pr

18、ovision does not promote any legitimate interest that is not already covered by15-112(A)(2) and (A)(4), and also likely would chill the teaching of legitimate ethnic studies courses. In sum, it does not further any legitimate pedagogical interest. (2)Therefore, in light of these ambiguities, the Cou

19、rt concludes that 15-112(A)(3) is facially overbroad. 3. 15-112(A)(4)(1)Infirmity: limitation on “ethnic solidarity”.(2) There is nothing inherently racist or divisive about “ethnic solidarity”.(3) However, the statute prohibits the “advocacy” of ethnic solidarity “instead of the treatment of pupils

20、 as individuals.” (4) Therefore, the provision is at least reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.(5) It is not unconstitutionally overbroad.D. Whether 15-112 is Unconstitutionally VagueVagueness Doctrine The doctrine based on the Due Process Clause requiring that a criminal statute s

21、tate explicitly and definitely what acts are prohibited or restricted, so as to provide fair warning and preclude arbitrary enforcement. - Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)Arguably Vague Phrases “to promote”, “advocate ethnic solidarity ” and “designed primarily for” However, these terms provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited. The statute is not facially vague.Vagueness as applied? The Court agrees that the two sets of Findings are sparse and, in some instances, conc

温馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
  • 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
  • 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
  • 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
  • 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

评论

0/150

提交评论