Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
59. Should the court uphold the law?
Parents of children enrolled in private schools within the state have filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this state law.
In order to improve the chances of those school districts retaining their federal funding, the state recently enacted a law that requires all children of elementary and secondary school age to attend the schools operated by their respective local public school districts. The law is to take effect at the beginning of the next school year.
After reviewing then-current levels of public school student performance, the officials of a state became concerned that several of its public school districts would lose their federal funding after the administration of the first national achievement test. Then-current levels of private school student performance were substantially higher.
Congress enacted a statute authorizing the denial of all federal funding to public school districts in which a specified percentage of the students enrolled in the public schools fail to pass a national achievement test. According to the terms of the federal statute, the first national achievement test was scheduled for administration five years from the effective date of the statute.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. The court should strike the law because the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly held that states may not require children to attend public schools. See Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). It is considered a fundamental right for parents to be able to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children, and any law that infringes upon that right must survive strict scrutiny. The state must, therefore, prove that the law is necessary to further a compelling state interest, which it cannot do here. The requirement that all children attend public schools not only runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent, but it is also not necessary to raise test scores. The state may pursue other avenues to work on increasing test scores during the five years prior to the first national achievement test.
A is incorrect. This answer applies an incorrect standard of review. Although the court would likely find that the state law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, it will instead apply strict scrutiny because the law infringes upon parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children.
B is incorrect. Although it is correct that strict scrutiny applies here, the law will not pass this heightened standard of review. This is because, as previously stated, the law infringes upon a fundamental right, and it is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The court should not uphold the law, but not because it fails the lower «mere-rationality» test, which does not apply here. In fact, this law might very well pass that minimal level of judicial review. The court should strike the law because it fails to satisfy strict scrutiny and goes against Supreme Court law proscribing such regulations by states, as explained above.