Case Briefing Assignment Description The purpose of this exercise is to introduce you to how to analyze a case. Please select one of the three cases on the second page to read and analyze. When you have completed reading the case answer the following questions (1-8). This assignment is worth 40 points. The three cases included have a URL, so the case can be found on the Internet. Many of the cases are available through Casetext (casetext.com), Justia (www.justia.com), the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School (www.law.cornell.edu). 1. Name & citation of case: Robinson v. Farley - Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. (1972). Retrieved July 7, 2022, from https://clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/DR-DC-0005-0002.pdf BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants. 2. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. In this civil case, seven school-age children and their next-door friends are asking for a declaration of their rights, an injunction against the defendants' exclusion of them from the District of Columbia Public Schools and/or denial of publicly funded education, and an order compelling the defendants to give the children and their next-door friends an immediate and adequate education, educational facilities in the public schools, or alternative placement at taxpayer expense. To carry out the basic relief, they also ask for supplementary and additional relief. They claim that even though they can benefit from an education in regular classes with supportive services or in special classes designed to meet their needs, they have been denied admission to public schools or excluded from them after being admitted without any provision for alternative educational placement or periodic review. 3. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: State the decision in administrative hearings and in the lower court(s). The defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as anyone actively working in concert or participating on their behalf, are hereby restrained from upholding, enforcing, or otherwise continuing in operation any and all rules, policies, and practices that bar the plaintiffs and the class members they represent from participating in a regular public-school assignment without paying for them out of pocket. In accordance with their needs, (a) adequate and prompt alternative education or tuition grants; (b) a previous hearing that meets constitutional requirements; and (c) a regular evaluation of their status. 4. Rationale: This is a very important part of the case brief. You must explain the gist of the court ruling, (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). Judge Wright determined that it was against the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to deprive poor public school students educational opportunities comparable to those offered to

2 more affluent public school students. Furthermore, the defendants' actions in this case violate the Due Process Clause since they denied the plaintiffs and their class not only an equal publicly supported education but also all publicly supported education while providing such education to other children. Plaintiffs and their class are not only denied the publicly funded education to which they are entitled, but many of them are also suspended or expelled from regular schooling or specialized instruction or reallocated without a previous hearing and are not afterwards subjected to periodic reviews. A hearing is necessary as part of the legal due process, and classification into a special program. 5. Holding: The ruling of the court. Plaintiffs have moved this Court for summary judgment in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court has reviewed the record of this cause, including Plaintiffs' Motion, pleadings, affidavits, evidence, and arguments in support thereof, as well as Defendants' a defense. Plaintiffs have filed their verified complaint seeking an injunction and declaration of rights as set forth more fully in the verified complaint and the prayer for relief contained therein. 6. Scope of the holding: Identify the jurisdiction of the court and the population addressed by the court. The proposed "Order and Decree" filed by the Board of Education, as slightly modified by the Court, will be included as part of the court's ruling. The court will retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure swift execution of the ruling. The plaintiffs' motion to order specific defendants to provide justification as to why they should not be found in contempt will be put on hold for 45 days. 7. Dissenting opinions: In cases out of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, there may be dissenting opinions. Were there any dissenting opinions? If so, what were their primary reasons for dissenting from the majority opinion? The court claims that even though they can benefit from an education in regular classes with supportive services or in special classes designed to meet their needs, they have been denied admission to public schools or excluded from them after being admitted without any provision for alternative educational placement or periodic review. The District of Columbia Board of Education and its members, the District of Columbia Superintendent of Schools and certain subordinate school officials, the District of Columbia Commissioner and a few subordinate officials, and the District of Columbia itself are the defendants. 8. Significance of the case: Explain how this case was significant to the field of special education. The District of Columbia State Board of Education's mission is to offer public education policy leadership, support, advocacy, and monitoring to guarantee that every student is valued and acquires the knowledge and abilities required to become informed, competent, and contributing members of society.

3 Case Briefing Assignment #1 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, (1972), 343 F. Supp., 279 (E.D. PA 1972). URL: http://www.pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PARC-Consent- Decree.pdf Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972). URL: http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/ED-DC-0002-0005.pdf