These 2 cases need to be in a legal brief format that is attached.

In 1988, in Louisiana Association of Educators v. Edward, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the Legislature has the exclusive authority to determine how much money would be appropriated for the public education system and that the school funding formula, developed by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, provides for the equitable distribution of the money the Legislature chooses to appropriate.

In Berry v. Pastorek in 2011, the U.S. District Court denied the State defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs had claimed that as a result of education “reform” in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, thousands of students with disabilities were not receiving an education, in violation of the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), Rehabilitation Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The parties negotiated a Consent Judgment, which the Court approved in 2015. Implementation is ongoing.

S

ample

Legal Brief

–

E

DL 5700

David

C

.

Fuller

E

DL 5700

– E

thics

and School L

aw

Legal Brief

#1

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison

, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic:

Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats

under a previous

president.

The legal limitations of the Supr

eme

Court.

Issues

:

(1)

Does Marbury have a right to the commission?

(2)

Does the law grant Marbury a

remedy?

(3)

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and

determine whether they are unconst

itutional and therefore void?

(4)

Can Congress expand the

scope of the Supreme Court’s original

jurisdiction beyond what is specified

in

Article III of the

Constitution?

(5)

Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to

issue writs of

mandamus?

Fact

s:

President John Adams commissioned forty

–

two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit

court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents,

they were sealed by the secretary of state,

but they were not delivered before his term expired.

When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison

was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court:

The cas

e was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court:

The court

found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was

owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to

issue writs of

mandamus.

Reasoning:

1.

Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They f

ound that when the President

signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2.

Yes. The

law grants Marbury a remedy.

C

ivil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the

protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.

A duty of the

government is to afford that

protection.

The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver

this

paper

was a

violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3.

Yes. The Supreme Court

has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and

therefore void.

4.

No. Congress cannot expan

d the scope of the Supreme Court’s original

jurisdiction beyond what is specified in

Article III of the Constitution

.

5.

No. The Supr

eme

Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

This was a matter in its

original jurisdiction.

S
ample Legal Brief
–

EDL 5700

David C. Fuller

E
DL 5700
–

E
thics
and School L
aw

Legal Brief
#1

Citation:
Marbury v. Madison
, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic:

Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats

under a previous
president.

The legal limitations of the Supreme Court.

Issues
:
(1)
Does Marbury have a right to the commission?

(2)
Does the law grant Marbury a
remedy?

(3)
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and
determine whether they are unconst
itutional and therefore void?

(4)

Can Congress expand the

scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the

Constitution?

(5)
Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Fact
s:
President John Adams commissioned forty
–
two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit
court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents,
they were sealed by the secretary of state,
but they were not delivered before his term expired.
When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison
was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court:
The cas
e was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court:
The court
found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was
owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to
issue writs of
mandamus.

Reasoning:
1.

Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They f
ound that when the President
signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2.
Yes. The
law grants Marbury a remedy.

C
ivil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the
protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.
A duty of the

government is to afford that
protection.

The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver

this

paper

was a
violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3.
Yes. The Supreme Court
has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and
therefore void.

4.
No. Congress cannot expan
d the scope of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction beyond what is specified
in
Article III of the Constitution
.

5.
No. The Supr
eme
Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

This was a matter in its
original jurisdiction.

Sample Legal Brief – EDL 5700

David C. Fuller

EDL 5700 – Ethics and School Law

Legal Brief #1

Citation: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic: Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats under a previous

president. The legal limitations of the Supreme Court.

Issues: (1) Does Marbury have a right to the commission? (2) Does the law grant Marbury a

remedy? (3) Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and

determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void? (4) Can Congress expand the

scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the

Constitution? (5) Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Facts: President John Adams commissioned forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit

court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents,

they were sealed by the secretary of state, but they were not delivered before his term expired.

When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison

was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court: The case was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court: The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was

owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to issue writs of

mandamus.

Reasoning: 1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They found that when the President

signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2. Yes. The

law grants Marbury a remedy. Civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the

protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. A duty of the government is to afford that

protection. The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver this paper was a

violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3. Yes. The Supreme Court

has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and

therefore void. 4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original

jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. 5. No. The Supreme

Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. This was a matter in its

original jurisdiction.