This document summarizes important legalities affecting schooling in America, including key federal legislation, court cases, and parts of the Constitution. It outlines major federal education acts from the late 18th century to the late 20th century, including acts providing funding for vocational education, special education, bilingual education, and more. It also summarizes several landmark Supreme Court cases related to desegregation, religious expression in schools, and rights of students and teachers.

1. CHAPTER 15– Copyright © 2005
IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA William Kritsonis
PAGE 78 All Rights Reserved / Forever
This book is protected under the Copyright Act of 1976. Uncited Sources,
Violators will be prosecuted. Courtesy, National FORUM Journals
CHAPTER 15
IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING
SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
KEY POINTS
THE THIRTEEN FEDERAL JUDICIAL CIRCUITS
AK
WA VT ME
MT ND MN
NH
OR WI NY MA
ID SD
MI CT RI
WY IA OH
NV NE NJ
IL IN PA
UT MO KY MD DE
CA
CO KS TN Washington,
AR WV VA D.C.
AZ
OK Federal Court
NM NC of Appeals
HI SC
MS AL GA
LA Puerto
TX Rico
FL
Guam and N.
Marina
Islands
Virgin Islands

2. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 79
CHAPTER 15–IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOL-
ING IN AMERICA
A. OVERVIEW
Chapter 15 presents information regarding important legalities affecting
schooling in America. Specific content focuses on federal legislation, impor-
tant court cases and decisions, and parts of the Constitution that affect educa-
tion in America.
B. KEY TERMS–DEFINITIONS – NONE
C. SOME PRECEDING THOUGHTS
1. Federal legislation affecting education.
Land Ordinance of 1785
• first legislation passed at the national level that had an impact on edu-
cation;
• required one section of each township established in the Northwest
Territory be reserved for the establishment of public schools.
Northwest Ordinance of 1787
• expressed general commitment for education by the federal govern-
ment;
• stated that “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the
means of education shall forever be encouraged”;
• considered by many as the foundation for public education.
Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862
• gave 30,000 acres of federal land to each state for each elected repre-
sentative to Congress;
• purpose of the land was to establish a college for agriculture and me-
chanical arts;
• eventual donation of 17 million acres of land.

3. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 80
The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917
• provided funds to states to train teachers in the area of vocational edu-
cation;
• primarily assisted high schools; however, some funds used in junior
colleges;
• helped establish an extensive network of vocational education in the
country;
National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-865)
• passed after the launching of Sputnik;
• primarily enacted as a defense action;
• provided unprecedented amounts of federal money for public educa-
tion;
• emphasized educational improvement in the areas of science and for-
eign languages.
Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-210)
• expanded federal support for vocational education;
• main purpose was to assist states in maintaining, extending, and im-
proving existing vocational education programs and to provide part-
time employment for youths;
• provided for $60 million during fiscal year 1964 and $225 million per
year thereafter.
Bilingual Education Act of 1964
• provided funds for school districts to develop and operate special pro-
grams for students with limited English-speaking skills;
• 1974 amendment removed requirements that students in the program
be from low income homes.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10)
• most extensive federal legislation passed dealing with public educa-
tion;
• focused public education efforts on children from poverty homes;
• provided funds for library support;
• established services for academic support and remedial instruction;
• provided funding for research activities by universities;

4. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 81
• funded programs at state education agencies to support personnel
training and planning.
Economic Opportunity Act of 1965
• continued efforts at providing services to poor children;
• funded Head Start programs.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-102)
• basically civil rights legislation for the handicapped;
• prevented discrimination against children and adults due to disabili-
ties;
• applied safeguards for school-age disabled children.
Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law
94-142)
• required the provision of a free, appropriate public education for all
handicapped children;
• mandated that all handicapped children have an Individualized Educa-
tional Program (IEP);
• required that handicapped children be educated with non-handicapped
children as much as possible;
• provided parents, students, and schools with due process safeguards;
• required that parents be involved in the education of their handicapped
children. Mandated that nondiscriminatory assessment practices be
used with children.
Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-88)
• established the Department of Education.;
• functions came from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35)
• consolidated 42 programs into seven programs;
• funding came from elementary and secondary block grant authority.
Rehabilitation Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221)
• revised and expanded Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504);
• provided for the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf/Blind.

5. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 82
Reauthorization of the Education of the Handicapped Act Amend-
ments (Public Law 99-457)
• reauthorized three-year programs under Public Law 94-142;
• mandated services for children with disabilities, ages 3-5, by
1990-1991;
• provided financial incentives to serve children 0-2 years with disabili-
ties.
The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-570)
• authorized funding for FY 87-89;
• part of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986;
• established programs for drug abuse education and prevention.
2. Important court cases affecting education.
Commonwealth vs. Hartment (1851) – the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
ruled that the state constitution and school laws only establish minimum
requirements and that schools could establish more stringent requirements,
in this case, mandatory education.
Springfield vs. Quick (1859) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that
states could collect taxes and tax funds for public educational programs.
Kalamazoo Case (1874) – the Michigan Supreme court ruled that the
Kalamazoo school district could levy taxes to support high schools.
Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) – the United States Supreme Court upheld a
Louisiana law that required railways to provide separate-but-equal facili-
ties for white and black individuals.
Attorney General of Michigan vs. Lowrey (1905) – the United States
Supreme Court upheld the right of state legislature to make and change
boundaries of school districts.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters (1925) – the United States Supreme Court
ruled that state laws may require the attendance of children in school, but
could not regulate whether the school is private or public.
Cochran vs. Louisiana State Board of Education (1930) – the United
States Supreme Court ruled that state funds could be used to purchase text-
books for all school-age children, including those attending private, sectar-
ian schools.

6. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 83
Illinois ex. rel. vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United States Supreme
Court ruled as unconstitutional a school program that permitted students to
attend religious instruction in school during school hours.
Illinois ex rel. Mccollum vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United States
Supreme Court ruled that school programs permitting religious instruction
during school hours, and allowing students to leave their regular classes
for the religious classes, was unconstitutional.
Sweatt vs. Painter (1950) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a
black student could not be denied admission to the University of Texas
Law School for the sole reason of race.
Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954) – the United States
Supreme Court ruled that children could not be denied admission to public
schools on the basic of race; ruling declared segregated public schools to
be unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-
tion.
Engel vs. Vitale (1962) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a
New York State law that required the reading of a 22-word, nondenomina-
tional prayer unconstitutional.
Abington School District vs. Schempp, Murray vs. Curlett (1963) – the
United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a law that required
the reading of 10 Bible verses and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer during
school hours, on school grounds, conducted by school personnel.
Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968) – a law forbidding the teaching of evolution
was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
Green vs. County School Board (1968) – the United States Supreme Court
declared that a “freedom of choice” plan in a previously segregated school
district offers little likelihood for desegregation. The ruling required that
an effective plan for desegregation be implemented.
Pickering vs. Board of Education (1968) – teachers may express their
opinions as long as the school’s regular operation is not disrupted.
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) –
the United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the suspension
of students wearing armbands or other symbolic expressions unless the
wearing of such interferes with school.
Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) – federal
court ruling upheld busing as a legitimate means for desegregating

7. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 84
schools. It gave district courts wide discretion in remedying longstanding
segregated school systems.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Pennsylvania
(1971) – federal court required local schools to provide a free, appropriate
public education for all school-aged, mentally retarded children.
Board of Regents of State Colleges vs. Roth (1972) – after a specified pro-
bationary period, teachers have a property interest in continued employ-
ment.
San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriquez (1973) – federal
court upheld a state funding model where local property taxes are used to
provide a minimum educational program for all students.
Sloan vs. Lemon (1973) – the United States Supreme Court ruled as un-
constitutional a law allowing for partial reimbursement by the state for tu-
ition paid by parents sending their children to private schools.
Cleveland Board of Education vs. Lefleur (1974) – board of education may
establish leave policies for pregnant teachers, but these policies may not
contain arbitrary leave and return dates.
Milliken vs. Bradley (1974) – the United States Supreme Court, in a five to
four decision, overturned lower court rulings that required the busing of
children between Detroit and suburban school districts to desegregate the
Detroit system.
Baker vs. Owen (1975) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a
statute allowing for reasonable corporal punishment was constitutional as
long as certain procedural rights were afforded.
Hortonville District vs. Hortonville Education Association (1976) – in a
due process hearing, a school board may be the impartial body conducting
the hearing.
Washington vs. Davis (1976) – under-representation of a group in the work
force does not, in itself, prove unconstitutional employment discrimina-
tion, but the employer in this situation must prove that hiring has not been
discriminatory.
Wolman vs. Walter (1977) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that
states may supply secular texts, standardized tests, diagnostic speech, hear-
ing and psychological services, and guidance and remedial services pro-
vided on religiously neutral territory to religious, private schools.

8. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 85
Steelworkers vs. Weber (1979) – employers (including school districts)
may use affirmative action plans to increase the number of minority em-
ployees.
Battle vs. Commonwealth (1980) – Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that some handicapped children should be afforded extended school year
services in cases where significant regression would occur during the sum-
mer.
Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982) – the United States Supreme court
ruled that Public Law 94-142 guaranteed the right of disabled children to a
minimally appropriate educational program, not a program designed to
maximize the educational performance of students.
Firefighters vs. Stotts (1984) – in affirmative action programs, government
units may not ignore seniority unless the minority candidates who benefit
have personally experienced discrimination.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that
while students had Fourth Amendment Rights relative to search and
seizure, schools could use “reasonable suspicion” as a reason for searches
rather than “probable cause.”
Spring Branch Independent School District vs. Stamos (1985) – the Texas
Supreme Court upheld the “no-pass no-play” rule in Texas requiring stu-
dents to meet certain academic standards before being eligible for ex-
tracurricular activities.
Day vs. South Park Independent School District (1985) – this case, which
will likely disturb educators, upheld the right of a school district to termi-
nate an employee simply because the employee had used the employee
grievance procedure.
District 27 Community School Board vs. The Board of Education of the
City of New York (1986) – the court ruled that a child with Acquired Im-
mune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) could be considered handicapped un-
der Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and therefore eligible
for certain protections under the law.
Jager and Jager vs. Douglas County School District and Douglas County
Board of Education (1987) – this case resulted in an ambiguous opinion
that made it unconstitutional for clergy to give a pregame invocation at a
high school athletic event. The decision left the door open for other than
clergy to give the invocation.

9. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 86
Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987) – the United States Supreme Court upheld a
lower court’s decision that the Louisiana law, the Balanced Treatment for
Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, was unconstitutional.
School Board of Nassau County vs. Arline (1987) – dismissing a teacher
because of physical impairment or contagious disease is unconstitutional.
Hoenig vs. Doe (1988) – in this case, the United States Supreme Court
ruled that schools had to keep a child with emotional problems in the
placement pursuant to the individualized educational program (IEP) unless
the parents and school agreed to a change, or until the due process proce-
dures for changing placement were carried out.
Lehnert vs. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) – employees who are not
union members cannot be required to pay dues used for political purposes
unrelated to collective bargaining agreements.
3. Important United States Supreme Court desegregation cases related
to the public schools.
Case Decision
Brown vs. Board of Edu- The doctrine of separate
cation of Topeka (1954) but equal in education
is a violation of the
Fourteenth Amend-
ment.
Green vs. County School Local school boards
Board of New Kent should immediately
County (1968) take whatever steps are
necessary to achieve a
unitary system.
Swann vs. Charlotte- Transportation of stu-
Mecklenburg Board of dents to opposite-race
Education (1971) school is permissible to
achieve desegregation.
Keyes vs. School District Proof of intent to segre-
No. 1 (Denver) (1973) gate in one part of a dis-
trict is sufficient to find
the district to be segre-
gated and to warrant a
district-wide remedy.
For purposes of defin-
ing a segregated school,

10. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 87
blacks and Hispanics
may be considered to-
gether.
Milliken vs. Bradley In devising judicial
(1974) remedies for desegrega-
tion, the scope of the
desegregation remedy
cannot exceed the scope
of the violation.
Dayton Board of Educa- Judicially mandated de-
tion vs. Brinkman (1977) segregation plans can-
not exceed the impact
of the segregatory prac-
tices.
Table continues
Table continued
Case Decision
Board of Education of Desegregation decrees
Oklahoma City Public are not intended to op-
Schools vs. Dowell erate in perpetuity, and
(1991) can be dissolved when a
district has made good
faith effort to comply
and to the extent practi-
cal has eliminated the
vestiges of past discrim-
ination.
Freeman vs. Pitts (1992) Lower courts can relin-
quish supervision of a
school district under de-
segregation decree in
incremental stages be-
fore full compliance has
been achieved in every
area of school opera-
tions.
Missouri vs. Jenkins Once the effects of
(1995) legally imposed segre-
gation have been elimi-

11. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 88
nated, the goal of de-
segregation plans need
not be to maintain racial
balance but to return
control to state and lo-
cal authorities. Any re-
segregation of neigh-
borhood schools that
may result is not uncon-
stitutional.
4. Summary of important major civil rights statues affecting education.
Statute Major Provision
Civil Rights Act of 1866, Provides all citizens
1870 equal rights under the
42 U.S.C. § 1981 law regardless of race.
Civil Rights Act of 1871 Any person who de-
42 U.S.C. § 1983 prives another of
his/her rights may be
held liable to the in-
jured party.
Civil Rights Act of 1871 Persons conspiring to
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and deprive another of
1986 his/her rights, or any
person having knowl-
edge of any such con-
spiracy, are subject continues
Table to
any action to recover
damages.
Table continued
Statute Major Provision
Civil Rights Act of 1866, Courts may award rea-
1870 sonable
(as amended) attorney fees to the pre-
42 U.S.C. § 1988 vailing party in any ac-
tion arising out of the
above acts and Title VI
of the Civil Rights of
1964.

12. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 89
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits discrimination
Title VI on the
42 U.S.C. § 2000(d) basis of race, color, or
national origin.
Equal Pay Act of 1963 Prohibits sex discrimi-
29 U.S.C. § 206(D) nation in pay.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Prohibits discrimination
Title VII in employment on the
42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) basis of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, or national
origin.
Age Discrimination in Prohibits discrimination
Employment Act of 1967 against any individual
29 U.S.C. § 621 with respect to employ-
ment unless age is a
bona fide occupational
qualification.
Education Amendments Prohibits sex discrimi-
of 1972, Title IX nation in any education
20 U.S.C. § 1681 program or activity re-
ceiving federal financial
assistance.
Rehabilitation Act of Prohibits sex discrimi-
1973 nation against any “oth-
(as amended) erwise qualified handi-
29 U.S.C. § 791 capped individual.”
Equal Educational Op- Prohibits any state from
portunities Act of 1974 denying equal educa-
20 U.S.C. § 1703 tional opportunities to
any individual based on
his/her race, color, sex,
or
national origin.
Americans with Disabili- Prohibits discrimination
ties Act of 1990 against persons with
42 U.S.C. §12112 disabilities.
Table continues

13. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 90
Table continued
Statute Major Provision
Individuals with Disabili- Individuals with dis-
ties abilities must be guar-
Education Act of 1990 anteed a free appropri-
20 U.S.C. § 1400-1485 ate education by pro-
grams receiving federal
financial assistance.
Civil Rights Restoration Amends the Civil
Act of 1991 Rights Act of 1964, the
42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of
1967, and the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 with regard
to employment discrim-
ination.
5. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting teachers’ rights.
Case Decision
Indiana ex rel. An- Tenure statutes provide
derson vs. Branch qualifying teachers with
(1938) contractual rights that
cannot be altered by the
state without good cause.
Keyishian vs. Board Loyalty oaths that make
of Regents (1967) mere membership in a sub-
versive organization
grounds for dismissal are
unconstitutionally over-
board.
Pickering vs. Board Absent proof of false state-
of Education (1968) ments knowingly or reck-
lessly made, teachers may
not be dismissed for exer-
cising the freedom to speak
on matters of public inter-
est.

14. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 91
Board of Regents vs. A nontenured teacher does
Roth (1972) not have a property right to
continued employment and
can be dismissed without a
statement of cause or a
hearing as long as the em-
ployee’s reputation or fu-
ture employment have not
been impaired.
Table continued Table continues
Case Decision
Perry vs. Sindermann Teacher may not be dis-
(1972) missed for public criticism
of superiors on matters of
public concern.
Cleveland Board of School board policy requir-
Education vs. Le ing that all pregnant teach-
Fleur (1974) ers take mandatory leave is
unconstitutional.
Hortonville Joint A school board may serve
School District No. 1 as the
vs. Hortonville Edu- impartial hearing body in a
cation Association due process hearing.
(1976)
Washington vs. Davis To sustain a claim of dis-
(1976) crimination, an employee
must show that the employ-
er’s action was a deliberate
attempt to discriminate, not
just that the action resulted
in a disproportionate im-
pact.
Mount Healthy City To prevail in a First
School Amendment dismissal case,
District vs. Doyle school district employees
(1977) must show that the conduct
was protected and was a

15. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 92
substantial and motivating
decision not to renew the
contract, and the school
board must prove that it
would have reached the
same decision in the ab-
sence of the protected con-
duct.
United States vs. Use of the National Teach-
South Carolina ers Examinations both as a
(1978) requirement for certifica-
tion and as a factor in
salary determination serves
a legitimate state purpose
and is not unconstitutional
despite its disparate racial
impact.
Connick vs. Myers The First Amendment
(1983) guarantee of freedom of ex-
pression does not extend to
teachers’ public comments
on matters of personal in-
terest (as opposed to mat-
Table continues
ters of public
concern).
Table continued
Case Decision
Cleveland Board of A teacher who can be dis-
Education vs. Laud- missed only for cause is en-
ermill (1985) titled to an oral or written
notice of charges, a state-
ment of the evidence
against him or her, and the
opportunity to present his
or her side prior to termina-
tion.

16. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 93
Garland Independent Teachers can use the inter-
School District vs. school mail system and
Texas State Teachers school mailboxes to dis-
Association (1986) tribute union material.
Wygant vs. Jackson Absent evidence that the
Board of Education school board has engaged
(1986) in discrimination or that the
preferred employees have
been victims of discrimina-
tion, school board policies
may not give preferential
treatment based on race or
ethnicity in layoff deci-
sions.
School Board of Nas- Persons suffering from
sau County vs. Arline contagious diseases are
(1987) considered handicapped
persons, and discrimination
against them based solely
on fear of contamination is
considered unconstitutional
discrimination against the
handicapped.
6. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting students’ rights.
Case Decision
Tinker vs. Des School officials cannot lim-
Moines (1969) it students’ rights to free
expression unless there is
evidence of a material dis-
ruption or substantial disor-
der.
Goss vs. Lopez (1975) For suspensions of less
than 10 days, the student
must be given an oral or
written notice of charges,
an explanation of the evi-
dence against him or her,
and the opportunity to re-
but the charges beforecontinues
Table an

17. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 94
objective decision maker.
Table continued
Case Decision
Wood vs. Strickland Students may sue school
(1975) board members for mone-
tary damages under the
Civil Rights Act of 1871.
Ingraham vs. Wright Corporal punishment does
(1977) not constitute cruel and un-
usual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment and
does not require due pro-
cess prior to administration.
Board of Education, Censorship by the school
Island Trees Union board acting in a narrowly
Free School partisan or political manner
District vs. Pico violates the First Amend-
(1982) ment rights of students.
Pyler vs. Doe (1982) The denial of a free public
education to undocumented
alien children violates the
equal protection guarantees
of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.
Bethel School Dis- School boards have the au-
trict vs. Fraser (1985) thority to determine what
speech is inappropriate and
need not tolerate speech
that is lewd or offensive.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. School officials are not re-
(1986) quired to obtain a search
warrant or show probable
cause to search a student,
only reasonable suspicion
that the search will turn up
evidence of a violation of
law or school rules.
Hazelwood School School officials may limit
District vs. Kuhlmier school-sponsored student

18. SCHOOLING (2002)
PAGE 95
(1988) speech as long as their ac-
tions are related to a legiti-
mate pedagogical concern.
Honig vs. Doe (1988) Disruptive handicapped
children may be expelled
but materials must be kept
in their current placement
until an official hearing is
held.
Table continued
Table continues
Case Decision
Franklin vs. Gwinnett The sexual harassment of a
(1992) student may be a violation
of Title IX for which mon-
etary damages can be
sought.
Vernonia School Dis- Special needs can justify
trict vs. “suspicionless” random
Acton (1995) searching of students.
7. Important parts of the United States Constitution.
Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-
dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to as-
semble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V – No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other-
wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject to
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be de-

19. CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
PAGE 96
prived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall pri-
vate property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV –
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
tection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states
according to their respective number, counting the whole number of per-
sons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote
at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President
of the United States, Representative in Congress, the Executive and Judi-
cial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied
any of the male inhabitants of such state, being 21 years of age, and citi-
zens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or the crime, the basis of representation therein shall be re-
duced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear
to the number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.
D. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES – NONE
E. REVIEW ITEMS – NONE