Comments | selfevidant: Rumsfeld v. FAIR

selfevidant

Rumsfeld v. FAIR

Feb 10, 2006 16:32

This is where I'll put the stuff we write up for our case. So just read the replies, 'cause that's where I'll have it all posted.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR)
No. W2006-10
Petitioner

Comments 5

Statement of the Case selfevidant February 11 2006, 00:34:03 UTC

The United States military has long been supported by the Congress through powers ensured by the Constitution. Article 1 section 8 specifies that Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defense and Welfare", "raise and support Armies", "provide and maintain a Navy", and "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". It was with these duties in mind that Congress enacted the Solomon Amendment in 1994, legislature which sought to secure a place for military recruiters in colleges and universities. As a volunteer military, recruitment is of the utmost importance in preserving the effectiveness of our armed services ( ... )

Proceedural History selfevidant February 11 2006, 00:34:22 UTC

Procedural History

The respondents in this case first brought the suit based on charges that their First Amendment right to the freedom of speech had been breached by the Solomon Amendment. The respondents filed suit in the District of New Jersey in September of 2003. They brought charges against the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland Security. The District Court of New Jersey denied FAIR's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The respondents then petitioned to the United States Court of Appeals. The case went to the Third Circuit Court, who reversed the decision of the District Court and granted the preliminary injunction against the Solomon Amendment on November 29th, 2004. The petitioners then asked the Evergreen Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on December 1st, 2005. The Evergreen Supreme Court granted the petitioners the writ of certiorari on January 10th, 2006.

Questions Presented selfevidant February 11 2006, 00:34:46 UTC

1. Do law school's meet the necessary requirements to be considered an expressive association with applicable First Amendment protections?

2. Does the minimal presence of military recruiters on campus overstep the bounds of the schools' anti-discrimination policy in such a way as to infringe upon their First Amendment rights?

3. Whether the respondents have sufficient evidence to trump both the presumption of constitutionality and the long-standing precedent of military-supported congressional statutes being upheld.

4. Under the balance-of-interests test, are the law schools' claims to First Amendment protections substantial enough to overpower the numerous clauses in Articles I and II in the United States Constitution that support military needs?

Outline of Arguments selfevidant February 11 2006, 00:35:13 UTC

I. Law schools do not meet the necessary requirements to form an expressive association and thus do not qualify for the right of expressive association afforded by the First Amendment ( ... )

Arguments-First Draft selfevidant February 11 2006, 00:36:19 UTC

II. THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS CLAUSES IN ARTICLES I AND II OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDE FOR OUR MILITARY NEEDS ( ... )