zelman v. simmons-harris?

Question

what was the issue?
how did the courts rule?
what is your opinion?

Answer 1

You will find some of your answers here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/background/00-1751_ref.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1751

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ZelmanSimmons.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Zelman_v_Simmons_Harris

http://candst.tripod.com/zelman.htm

I have not read the case therefore I have no opinion, sorry.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it passed a five part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test. The decision was 5-4, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority. Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria: 1-the program must have a valid secular purpose, 2-aid must go to parents and not to the schools, 3-a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered, 4-the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and 5-there must be adequate nonreligious options. The court ruled that the Ohio program met the five-part test in that 1) the valid secular purpose of the program was "providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system", 2) the vouchers were given to the parents, 3) the "broad class" was all students enrolled in currently failing programs, 4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school, and 5) there were other public schools in adjoining districts, as well as non-sectarian private schools in the Cleveland area, available that would accept vouchers. Yes I agree with the court on this case.*