Constitutional rights violations in high school education: an IRAC analysis

¶ … violation of the student's Constitutional rights

The issue is whether there has been a possible violation of a student's "constitutional right to education" due to the fact that during the time she had to stay in the cage based on Mr. Billups' order she had to miss all of her other classes for that day. R: The rule is that unlike various state constitutions the federal Constitution does not contain a "right to education." The U.S. Supreme Court addressed itself to this issue in 1973 in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In this decision the U.S. Supreme Court held that education is neither explicitly nor impliedly guaranteed as a "fundamental right" in the U.S. Constitution (Constitutional Requirements Governing American Education -- Federal constitutional Requirements, State Constitutional Issues, Conclusion, p. 1). Therefore, a constitutional right to education of student Li could not have been violated by Mr. Billups. I: The issue is whether foreign born student's Li Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional right of "due process" or "equal protection" has been violated by Mr. Billups' placing her in a wired cage for one day in order to "help" her relive the events of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor resulting in limiting her freedom to move and preventing her from attending all other classes that day. R: The rule is that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is that no State shall deprive any person of liberty without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It has long been settled that the term "person" person in the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses both citizens and aliens to the protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment (Rights of Non-Citizens Under the Equal Protection Clause, p. 1). Classification practices used by school people, such as those of Mr. Billups, to group students into groups often implicate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Such claims raise a question concerning which constitutional standard is the appropriate standard for reviewing school policies or decisions. Historically, school boards were presumed to make their decisions for permissible reasons. Parents or students who did not like a decision by the board of education or its personnel had the burden of overcoming this presumption of permissible decision-making. Aggrieved parents or students would have to show that the school's decision was irrational. This is usually quite difficult to prove. Conversely, the so called "Rational Basis Test" applies when a school's policy or decision does not implicate a constitutional or civil right, or does not touch on a protected class. The Rational Basis Test asks if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Under this test, school personnel only have to state a reason for their decision. It doesn't have to be the best decision, or even a particularly wise decision.