Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Intersection Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 And The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Suzanne Solomon
The Intersection Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 And The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Suzanne Solomon
Fordham Law Review
This Note reviews the history, structure, and purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It then describes how the two statutes intersect and interact. Next, this Note examines the existing split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals regarding the availability of § 1983 as a remedy for violations of the IDEA. This Note ultimately contends that Congress intended § 1983 suits to prevail under the IDEA and argues that school districts will be deterred from violating the statute's provisions if such suits are allowed to proceed.
Reconciling Morse With Brandenburg, Steven Penaro
Reconciling Morse With Brandenburg, Steven Penaro
Fordham Law Review
This Note examines Morse v. Frederick in connection with the Brandenburg v. Ohio test governing speech that advocates unlawful acts. In Morse, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a new test that gives school officials the power to restrict student speech promoting the use of illegal drugs. However, in Brandenburg, the Supreme Court held that speech must be struck down if the speaker intends to incite imminent lawless action and that speech is likely to produce such action. This Note argues that a relaxed application of the Brandenburg standard would be useful in prohibiting student drug speech within a school setting.
Misinterpreting "Sounds Of Silence": Why Courts Should Not "Imply" Congressional Preclusion Of § 1983 Constitutional Claims, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Misinterpreting "Sounds Of Silence": Why Courts Should Not "Imply" Congressional Preclusion Of § 1983 Constitutional Claims, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Fordham Law Review
Despite the clear text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, its promise to protect constitutional rights has been obfuscated by the theory that Congress, by enacting civil rights laws, has "impliedly" foreclosed the historic use of § 1983 to vindicate constitutional wrongdoing. Increasingly, plaintiffs are being denied their right to vindicate constitutional wrongdoing, either because the new "preempting" federal statute does not trigger individual liability or because it makes institutional liability more difficult to establish. It is counterintuitive to believe that Congress, in an attempt to expand equality or due process, intended to cut off existing remedies for constitutional violations. Nonetheless, …