Supreme Court Provides for Civil Rights Claim in Peer Sexual Harassment Case

In somewhat of a shocking fashion, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled to permit victims of peer sexual harassment in the educational context to pursue civil rights claims against schools and school officials under Section 1983, even if they have separate viable claims under Title IX.  The decision was unanimous, with Justice Alito writing for the Court.

The case of Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee grows out of allegations that “paint a grotesque picture of peer-on-peer sexual harassment at the elementary school level.” The case involves these facts:

On the morning of February 14, 2001, Jacqueline Fitzgerald, a kindergarten student, informed her parents, Lisa Ryan and Robert Fitzgerald, that each time she wore a dress to school — typically, two to three times a week — an older student [third-grader] on her school bus would bully her into lifting her skirt . . . . in addition to pressing her to lift her dress, [the 3rd- grader] had bullied her into pulling down her underpants and spreading her legs . . . .

[T]he police department ultimately decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed criminally against [the 3rd-grader].  Relying in part on this decision and in part on the results of the school’s own investigation, [the school district official] reached a similar conclusion as to disciplinary measures.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Provides for Civil Rights Claim in Peer Sexual Harassment Case

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Nken v. Filip, on Question of Standard of Review for Stays of Removal Pending Appeal

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the argument in Nken v. Filip (formerly Nken v. Mukasey), which asks whether an alien who seeks a stay of deportation pending appeal must prove by clear and convincing evidence that his deportation is prohibited by law.  The majority of courts have held that the ordinary standard for stays pending appeal continues to apply to such stays despite Congress’s enactment in 1996 of legislation providing that “no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law,”8  U.S.C. sec. 1252(f)(2).

The question is especially important in cases like Mr. Nken’s, in which the alien’s underlying claim is that he will suffer severe persecution or even death if returned to his country.  If such aliens must demonstrate their right to stay by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., more than a preponderance of the evidence, to obtain a stay, then the expected result would be that some aliens with valid claims would be returned to their home countries and possibly subject to persecution before having the chance to have their appeals decided on the merits.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Nken v. Filip, on Question of Standard of Review for Stays of Removal Pending Appeal

In the Supreme Court, ACCA Is Back-a

Recently, the Supreme Court has been taking a lot of interest in the Armed Career Criminal Act, which requires that a minimum fifteen-year prison term be imposed on certain defendants with three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or crimes of violence.  As I discussed here, the ACCA has proven to be an interpretive nightmare, with courts struggling for more than two decades now to decide exactly which prior convictions count as triggers for the mandatory minimum.  With several recent opinions and cert grants, the Supreme Court now seems intent on addressing some of the many circuit splits in the ACCA case law.

Of particular note last year was the Court’s decision in Begay v. United States, in which the Court held that DUI is not a “crime of violence.”  Now, following in Begay’s footsteps, the Court held today in Chambers v. United States (No. 06-11206) that failure to report to prison is not a crime of violence. 

Chambers does not purport to revise the analytical framework used in Begay, but I am struck by how much closer the Chambers opinion seems to be to Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Begay than to the majority opinion in the earlier case.  Has Scalia convinced a few of his colleagues to switch sides?

Continue ReadingIn the Supreme Court, ACCA Is Back-a