Members of the Jamestown School Committee v. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt, as Commissioner of Education of the State of Rhode Island

OF the JAMESTOWN MEMBERS al., COMMITTEE, et

SCHOOL

Plaintiffs, Appellees, SCHMIDT, as Commission- C.

Dr. Thomas of Rhode the State Education

er of Defendants, Appellants.

Island, al., et 82-1081.

No. Appeals, Court of States

United Circuit.

First 10, 1982. June

Argued Jan.

Decided 10,1983. Denied March

Rehearing * COFFIN, Judge, Chief ROSENN

Bеfore BREYER, Judges. Circuit COFFIN, Judge. Chief The issue in this case whether bus trans providing Rhode Island nonpublic school children be portation “law district limits constitutes a yond religion” an establishment respecting the First and is therefore invalid under Amendments. Plaintiffs Fourteenth federal, taxpayers state and local several organizations, two the American Civil United for Union Americans Liberties dis of Church and State.1 The Separation court, the law finding provides “greater op with school children their greater public expense tions ad counterparts”, pro contacts to coordinate the ministrative with gram together the risk along religious lines created “an division entanglement church and excessive state”, law held unconstitutional. of the Jamestown Comm. Members Schmidt, (D.R.I.1981) F.Supp. III). (Jamestown Litigation History I. of Rhode has struggled The State Island unsuccessfully but thus far persistently the benefits of its school extend nonpublic who attend program local nonprofit schools outside of their enacted, As originally districts. Schatz, Gen., Sp. Atty. Daniel J. Asst. busing statute stated that “[t]he Providence, R.I., with whom Dennis J. Rob- any provide committee of town shall suit- erts, II, Gen., Atty. Providence, R.I., was on for able and from school briеf, defendants, appellants. for ... attending public schools who re- pupils DeLuca, Warwick, R.I., A. any Amato so from school as to side far Blanding A. regular whom Sandra and Revens & make their attendance at school ” Ltd., DeLuca, Warwick, R.I., brief, were on 16- impracticable .... R.I.Gen.Laws § version). plaintiffs, appellees. (former provision A second 21-1 * Kurtzman, Circuit, court), nom. sitting by designation. aff'd sub Lemon v. the Third Of (1971). 91 S.Ct. standing recently legitimacy taxpayers reaffirmed the 1. Plaintiffs chal- The Court Valley legislative authorizing lenge standing under Flast. taxpayer enactment expenditure Forge College United of funds as violative of the Estab- Christian v. Americans State, principles Separation of Flast v. Clause under the of Church and lishment 454 U.S. Cohen, L.Ed.2d 700 See, Robinson, e.g., (1968). DiCenso v. (D.R.I.1970) (three-judge 114 n.

required such school committee to “provide children alike.” Id. at 1343. Because pupils attending private schools . .. the transportation must provided be for most rights privileges transporta- same as to (aside school children from vocational provided tion to and schools as are students) education “only within attending public pupils schools.” 16- districts”, the local school the court cоnclud- (repealed). primary ed that the beneficiaries of the law “attending schools,

The Rhode were children private Island Court subse interpreted the quently statutory phrase majority the vast of which are sectarian.” schools” “public apply Therefore, applied provided Id. the law as within a student’s local school dis option attending “an additional to children trict; therefore, the court ruled that (i.e., non-public sectarian) out-of-district provision requiring students be schools”. Id. at 1347. The court also found rights “the same offered and privileges” as the statute would entan- impermissibly students did not authorize busing gle church and state in two ways, by in- private beyond students local districts. the creasing amount of administrative coor- Chaves School Comm. of the Town of necessary plan dination to transportation Middletown, 100 R.I. 211 A.2d 639 routes, by exacerbating political frag- (1965). The statute was thereafter amend along mentation religious lines. Id. at 1349. require that public transportation ed to be There no appeal was from this decision. to students provided residing within an area in Finally, the state en- legislature by any “public private served or here, actеd the busing provisions challenged consolidated, are regionalized, or [which] 16-21.1-1, R.I.Gen.Laws The -2 & -3. §§ otherwise established to serve residents of a statute divides the state regions, into five specific area within the state ... notwith requires each local school committee to standing the location of the school without student, provide a resident whether attend- limits of the town.” Although the this law ing public school, a or private with “bus interdistrict busing, authorized it provided transportation to the facility school or standards to limit guide or the discretion pupil attends”, which the long as the as private schools in expanding the size of “within region school is in which the they the areas would serve. The state Su pupil resides.” 16-21.1-2. The preme § Court therefore law also held that it consti impermissible procedure an has a variance delegation tuted which allows a of legis power private public private lative to a or student to entity, attend a school and invali dated the law with respect region to outside of the in “regions” not which the student in existence when the statute was if the enacted. resides Commissioner of Education Jennings v. Exeter-West Greenwich Re “finds that there is no similar school within gional Comm., Dist. School 116 R.I. region, that transportation is nec- 634, 638-40 (1976). A.2d essary provide to an opportuni- educational which the ty pupil has a right pursue, to response ruling, legis- state that the building school which the pupil imposed lature the additional limitation (15) attends is within fifteen miles of the that “a town shall not be required to trans- city or town of which the pupil is a resi- any pupil port beyond an area having a 16-21.1-3. dent.” While provi- these § (fifteen) 15 mile radius from the school appear neutral, public sions a student building which such pupil attends.” The “attend a school ... outside of court, however, federal held [his] that city or town” if the local this amended law school com- violated the Establish- ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍mittee finds that such “provides ment Clause. Members a of the Jamestown Schmidt, Comm. v. program School curriculum not available with- F.Supp. 1338 (Jamestown (D.R.I.1977) I). district, in” the local school The court as authorized by found, first, that the law “does not prac- in R.I.Gen.Laws 16-3.1-1 (“Cooperative § tice, to, purports provide its transporta- Among Districts”). Service 16- tion benefits to public and sectarian school added). (emphasis 21.1-1 No similar re- tarian school officials” in сonnection with imposed private students. quirement remoteness, however, Second, busing same criteria Id. re- program. students alike apply the state Commissioner Education quired eligibility their determining a sectarian school determine whether is, first place “regionalized” and whether was —that sectarian, eligible busing only transportation located re- outside “live at such distances the schools they was to a sectarian school gion “similar” as to make it impractical attend which Finally, Id. region. within require or hazardous walk [them] budgets been noted 16-21.1-1. school.” § limit”, id., and that “pared to stat- already realized in August potential, Plaintiffs initiated the ute carried the along lawsuit federal district court. reli- present fragmentation part, deciding the federal constitutional Before lines. 1052. The court gious stayed Id. at raised, however, the district court certified sev- issues pending appeal, find- its decision law to the issues of state Rhode Island eral stay “a grant refusal will upheld That court Supreme Court. serious, harm to irreparable large cause the state against constitutional school children” and nonpublic number challenges, ruling the use of “not its dеcision on the merits was free transport private funds from doubt.” of “secur[ing] to the proper means regard provision to the variance With advantages opportunities people beyond the five re- education”, XII, 1, R.I.Const. Art. and agree we with district court’s entan- gions, that, invalidated in Jennings, unlike the law analysis affirm. As to the glement and rest not an law was unconstitutional present the holding, we reverse. of its power delegation legislative of because II. The Relevant Authorities school districts re- [i.e., “five established n procedure variance has and a gions] the validity analyzing [which] the stat the that carefully circumscribed interest Clause, the ute under the Establishment have in expanding schools applied three-part court the familiar district transportation.” Members of purposes First, have a the statute must secular test. Schmidt, Comm. v. the Jamestown School second, principal its legislative purpose; (Jamestown (1979) 405 A.2d R.I. that effect must be one neither primary II). third, nor religion; inhibits advances law must not foster an excessive the of the Reaching the merits federal consti- religion or entanglement with government the district question, court tutional along rеli political divisiveness III found the law excessive “essentially Jamestown III, supra, lines. indistinguishable” gious from the invali- Jamestown 1049; see, e.g., I and held at Committee for F.Supp. Jamestown therefore dated the Religious Liberty it violated Establishment Clause. that Public Education and 1048-49. the F.Supp. Specifically, 653, 100 at Regan, U.S. the statute concluded that unconstitu- Kurtzman, court (1980); Lemon 63 L.Ed.2d tionally sectarian school gave children 2105, 2111, 612-13, greater public at “greater options expense 745 (1971). counterparts”, id. at than their prong three-part of the On first impermissible it had the ef- that that test, strenuously argue appellees transferring major cost fect of of sectari- of antecedent lengthy history intricate to the regionalization taxpayers an school busing to to sec provide efforts legislative at 1051. The also of the state. Id. impermissible pur an students shows tarian fostered the statute excessive found present “sup in the law’s enactment pose entanglement religion. government non-public First, support financial “significant ply it entailed administrative court, however, sec- The district interaction between schools”. support in the record for such an fits genеral expense guise gen- found “no at in the III, and, Jamestown supra, programs, by removing assertion”. 525 eral the temp- at 1049. F.Supp. legislative Given deference ac- illicit attempts, tation for mini- finding to such a prospects corded the district mizes the recurrent court, it is say unsupported, along religious we cannot strife lines such at- and, given Supreme likely Court’s evident tempts are to breed. willingness accept a stated pur- secular Second, although school lines have at in school aid cases pose essentially face significance Establishment magic Clause value,2 find no basis which to disturb themselves,3 they wholly are not irrele finding. court’s the district Section 16-21.- As the Court has Supreme vant either. purposes, among 1-1 recites number of context, recognized in another district lines health, protect “to safety them strongly society reflect a felt our need pupils who live welfare distances vitally affect for local control decisions they which attend children, of our San Anto education impractical make it or hazardous to require Independent Rodri nio School District v. pupil walk to school.” Under the 1, 49-51, guez, 411 U.S. area, leаding Court case in this (1973), the local dis 36 L.Ed.2d constitutional purpose. this is a secular Ev- the unit which school trict remains 7,1, Board of erson v. in Rhode is financed. Island 91 L.Ed. 711 budgets when school have been At a time limit, III, the second of the prong three-part supra,

On Jamestown pared to test, district court held of a town at taxpayers inter-dis- transportation options must be equally transportation region might one end of pass all to fairly available constitutional mus- feel less than treated if predictably unequal pay ter. If were transport must sectarian stu of first impression, matter we might opposite well town lines end dents across First, requirement agree. equal just avail- those region of the because ability effectively ensures that a prefer the distant school. resentment Such grant will not majority itself especially likely programs bene- See, Walter, e.g., 229, ing healthy Wolman v. 2. 433 a and U.S. safe educational environment 236, 2593, 2599, (1977) pluralism 97 S.Ct. promoting children and for school (though diversity loan of among instructional materials and nonpublic and and equipment prong was invalid under the effect schools) (one-paragraph discussion); Lemon v. three-part test, difficulty” had Kurtzman, of the Court “no supra, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at finding “legitimate protecting a interest in (though salary sup- 2111 Rhode Island teacher youth provid- of the health and in [the states] plements Pennsylvania salary, textbook environment”) (one- a fertile educational grants and instructional material were invalid Pittenger, paragraph discussion); Meek v. 421 entanglement prong, under “the statutes 349, 363, 95 S.Ct. 44 U.S. L.Ed.2d they clearly state that are intended ... to en- (though (1975) loan of 217 direct instructional quality of the hance the secular education in all materials to secular schools was unconstitu- by compulsory schools covered attendance test, “accepted]” tional the effect Court under laws” is no reason to believe the “[t]here analysis legitimacy further without the secular else”) legislatures anything (one-para- meant purpose assuring of the act’s stated of discussion). graph On the Court’s treatment of “ample opportunities develop children their purpose generally, Tribe, see test the secular L. capacities”), (one-paragraph intellectual discus- 836-37, American Constitutional Law nn. 7 & sion); Committee Public Education and Re- 10, and authorities cited thereat. Libеrty Nyquist, 756, ligious 773, v. 413 U.S. 93 2955, 2965, (1973) (though 37 948 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d agree Judge 3. Newman’s In this we con- grants, tuition tuition tax credits and direct Property clusion in Cromwell Owners Ass’n v. grants secular schools for maintenance Toffolon, 915, (D.Conn.1979), 495 921 test, repairs were invalid under effect Court not, lines are in and of them- “[district necessary only briefly found it “touch on the selves, constitutionally significant”. We disa- legislative ”, requirement purpose’ of a ‘secular however, gree, apparent with his conclusion legislative ap- purposes since “the recitation of impor- no Establishment Clause pended “legiti- to New York’s law” included tance at all. preserv- nonsectarian state interests” mate

7 parents the cost of ments to semiannual busing. be cut to cover in one pay- must else, inter-district nothing If thus parochial ment. that same 21 period, greater threat of divi- presents all, were bused in and they religious lines than along intra-dis- siveness percent than five accounted less busing. reimbursements as a $357.74 whole — $8,034.95. See Everson v. Board of court’s Educa- Finally, approach pro- the district tion, and workable test in an area 133 N.J.L. at 44 A.2d at vides clear 335. separation lines of where the between not, however, We do write on a blank are, perhaps inevitably, and state church Everson alone. slate. does not stand We and indistinct. See Lemon v. blurred discipline, constrained our which in are 614, Kurtzman, 403 supra, U.S. compels case us to accord critical requirement also avoids Such to several decisions of weight summary deeply courts more entangling the in diffi- we Supreme specifically, Court. More sensitive politically determinations cult court’s the district insistence persuaded degree of permissible inequality —de- foreclosed equality on strict Su which lack we clear Su- terminations Court’s recent decisions in preme Spring and which guidance, Court courts as preme Pennsylvania field School District v. De ill suited to make. seem Unlike institutions Education, 539, 483 Pa. partment 397 approach employment discrimination 1154, appeal want of A.2d dismissed for cases, like to contemplate should not question federal sub substantial nom. determine whether undertaking given Pittsburgh Pennsylva District v. School busing plan pretextual Education, Department nia 443 U.S. to us Nor does it seem realistic to not. (1979); L.Ed.2d 869 Pe free whether is a inquire qua quea Valley Pennsylvania or but-for cause of a School District sine non Education, survival. school’s 483 Pa. Department 1154, appeal A.2d dismissed for want of a upheld While the ba federal question, substantial constitutionality of state busing sic of sec (1979); 61 L.Ed.2d some 35 years ago tarian students in Ever McKeesport Area District v. Penn Education, supra, son Board of Everson Department sylvania Pa. prove would no barrier to alone the district (1978), appeal Though it Commw. 392 A.2d approach. court’s evident opinions from the and record that Everson dismissed for want of a substantial federal inter- as well as involved some intra-district question, students, busing, and that at least level, elementary greater had inter- Pequea, Springfield, At issue options McKeesport Pennsylvania was a reasonably could view this discrepancy for transportation pupils of to providing de as minimis. Because respondent up to 10 miles district beyond schools lines. in Everson school board maintained public pupils Pennsylvania, school Since the eighth grade, beyond schools the board Island, ordinarily in Rhode must attend as high reimbursed school public districts, principal in their ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍home schools private, public cost of and transit to busing were beneficiaries of inter-district nearby cities of Trenton and Penning here, the districts students. As sectarian paid The board also ton. fares of five McKeesport argued that Springfield elementary students in parochial the dis gave unconstitutionally scheme sectari- Education, v. Board of trict. See Everson students a benefit unavailable to an at 30 & n. supra, 330 U.S. S.Ct. at 518 in violation of the public generally, J., (Rutledge, dissenting); 7n. Everson v. & Establishment Clause: 350, 351, 133 N.J.L. Board statutory requirement provide to A.2d Those five “A accounted [in- percent transportation less than two the reimburse- ter-district] [to where no transported similar up outside district lines to a students] ” provided regular public pupils school (10) of ten Pequea distance miles .. . . raises a substantial Establishment Clause Jurisdictional Statement 12. question. case, ap- In each the Court dismissed want of a peals ques- substantial federal stand, .... If the Act is permitted tion. pupils attending nonprofit precise meaning While the of sum Pennsylvania schools in will receive such mary Springfield, Pequea, decisions as greater benefits in the form of free McKeesport uncertain, is necessarily transportation services than their public Gressman, R. & E. Supreme see Stern Court cоunterparts.” school McKeesport Juris- (1978) Practice and authorities cited 12; dictional Statement Springfield therein,4 they remain the mer decisions on Jurisdictional Statement its, binding on the lower courts at least as Pequea, a companion to Springfield, case “specific to the challenges presented in the district asserted precise is- “[t]he of jurisdiction”. statement Mandel v. Brad addressed sues federal district 173, 176, ley, in Schmidt are court[] [Jamestown I] 199 (1977) (per curiam). Whatever in the instant present appeal”, and argued personal our views of the wisdom of the the inequalities in the act rendered it approach, district court’s we are constrained on equal protection grounds: invalid to conclude that requirement its of strict does equal not afford benefits “[The Act] equality eligibility for inter-district bus public nonpublic pupils alike. it, appellees’ contentions on —and applying Without for and receiving spe- Although issue —must fail. the Rhode dispensation, cial public school student and Pennsylvania Island differ statutes living in one not, can district under certain particulars Pennsylvania, for in the Pennsylvania Code, — attend a stance, restricts busing by inter-district public school located in another district. aof mile means limit to schools ten miles Consequently, the transportation pub- lines, district beyond whereas Rhode Island lic school pupils by respective their dis- relies in first geographical instance on tricts is confined bussing said pu- [sic] “transportation regions” to the outer fix pils to schools located within the district such busing limit of differences are boundaries. option of being trans- —the simply not constitutional dimension.5 So ported not, outside the from a standpoint, long sectarian children are practical available schools, their own pupils even bused to the same though does [the Act] its prohibit terms standard remoteness applies action. Other rules regulations alike, and sectarian students fact restricting attendance pupils ineligible students are ordinarily schools located within the district beyond serve to district lines does prevent the extra-district bussing not render 16-21.1-1 under the invalid [sic] pupils. said Nonpublic pupils, on Establishment Clause or the Protec Equal hand, the other option have the of being tion Clause.6 4. The itself has conceded that of more 55 miles summary dispositions its round-trip possible). oftеn “somewhat opaque”. Berryhill, Gibson v. 411 576, 1689, 1697, (1973). 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 488 not 6. We do fault district court over- Supreme looking summary Court’s deci- involved, Given the Springfield, 5. size of the Pequea, McKeesport. school districts in sions and implicated by the distances party Rhode Island’s McKeesport Neither mentioned or below regions comparable are appeal, parties to those and while both discussed the implicated See, Pennsylvania e.g., in the Pennsylvania Supreme opinion cases. in Court’s McKeesport app. Springfield Pequea, Jurisdictional party Statement D at and neither men- (district measuring miles; 7a jurisdictional 18.7 miles 14.8 the U.S. tioned

9 general significant, legislation made available to all stu- constitutionally isNor dents, stu . .. include church-related schools in itself, Rhode Island sectarian in providing transportation”) bus programs over routes rather are bused dents added); Committee for Public (emphasis routes. If public school established Religious Liberty Nyquist, and v. constitutionally can be Education students 756, 2955, 38, 781-82 & n. 93 S.Ct. dis 413 U.S. beyond bused to 38, (1973) & n. lines, necessarily must be bused trict Everson, (busing in whose “class of benefi- public school than established on other children”, all included ciaries Although the said it Everson Court routes. was to services private, analogous as as well in a statute “verge” upholding went to the which police protection, as fire busing over established provided citizens”) “in common to all provided limit routes, cases refused to later added); Kurtzman, v. su- Lemon (emphasis to such routes. busing schemes 616-17, 2113 pra, at 91 at 403 U.S. S.Ct. Springfield, Pe McKeesport, supra; supra; (Establishment Clause bus trans- permits Newtown, v. supra; Snyder Town of quea, “supplied common to all stu- portation 377-79, 161 772-73, 374, 770, A.2d 147 Conn. v. Board dents”) (emphasis added); Everson for want of a substantial appeal dismissed 17, supra, at 67 330 U.S. S.Ct. 81 question, federal (state may “spend[ constitutionally at 512 ] 5 L.Ed.2d funds to fares of pay tax-raised bus time, our approval At same 16- of §§ parochial pupils part general as -3 is limited. As the 21.1-1, -2 and Su- under which it for fares of program pays cautioned, summary itself has preme Court attending public schools”) and other pupils a, Springfield, such as Peque decisions added). (emphasis McKeesport “should be understood as “common to all” ground” new or While Court’s breaking overruling past as first square is at language blush difficult applying principles “but es- precedents, inequalities upheld Springfield, with by prior tablished decisions”. Mandel McKeesport, we must reconcile Pequea, Bradley, supra, U.S. at 97 S.Ct. as best the authorities can. We do not decisions, prior In those the Court “common to re language read the all” uniformly to the constitution- has referred quire equality expendi absolute access or ality transporting sectarian students as ture, statewide, busing either taking program “general” “neutrally” part of whole, as a or program district-by-district common” to “in “all” school chil- provided program’s each of the inter- and intra-dis Walter, 229, 253, dren. Wolman U.S. do, however, We lan read this parts. (1977) L.Ed.2d 714 guage degree disparity to limit Clause not where (Establishment offended permit. busing will Constitution Whether common “municipal carrier is ordered to lines, a district or across district within rate, children carry at a reduced eligi must be students force police pro- is ordered to where to their schools on the same ble on their way tect all children to and from distance is and sec terms: the criterion added); school”) (emphasis Roemer v. living students distance tarian certain Works, Public 746- Board of U.S. are eligible from their school 49 L.Ed.2d expense, public living Blackmun, J., (1976) (opinion joined from must like distance their school same Powell, C.J., Burger, J.) (religious insti- eligible. be wise quarantined pub- “need not be tutions neutrally available per- lic benefits the relative costs important, Just as all”) added); Pittenger, (emphasis Meek v. of sectarian student bus- student 1753, 1763, remain We roughly proportional. must (1975) (State may, part Judge “as Newman’s observation agree controlling significance. precedential in those cases and their

statements 10 impermissible or an effect is indi- primary Ass’n v. Toffo- Property Owners

Cromwell lon, supra, F.Supp. cated, at that has bred palpable disparity or where “[a]t cost of point, lines, the inter-district trans- along some divisiveness significant attending for students sectarian portation busing program that persuaded a we are may grossly dispropor- become so “general” program be a have ceased to will to the compared ordinary expense tionate all, neutrally benefits available of secular public busing that the of ‘indirect’ provid- the line from and will crossed in regionalization accruing to sec- benefits benefit to “remote and incidental” ing a will to a institutions rise constitu- tarian and immediate” benefit offering “direct tionally significant level” and have as their religion.8 the religion. effect advancement of primary the Applying principles these agree Pennsylvania the also Su- We case, cannot least on the say, we instant Court that constitutional limits are preme record, yet has that Rhode Island present transportation “if the cost of exceeded that court found line. district crossed attending students sectarian schools [is] busing stu of sectarian disproportionate ap- that it so bec[o]me[s] expensive intra-dis more dents transportation that the provided parent busing of regular public youngster merely [is] in statute had “the effect fact of that the to confer benefit to the ruse sectarian major regionaliza transferring a cost of pupil.” Springfield v. School District schools and sectarian Pennsylvania Department tion” from sectarian of su- parents n. of Rhode taxpayers Pa. at 558 397 A.2d at n. students’ pra, III, To these add supra, observations we that inor- Jamestown 9. Island. dinately long-distance busing calls into Because the evidence cost was at 1051. health, the secular safety however, and wel- question incomplete, and the method of in purposes busing’s cited support, fare unexplained, the calculation point, some increased hazards of ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍finding to the difference precise made no as increasing over in- travel distances and for between stu in cost and sectarian creasing may outweigh times the benefits busing. the Supreme dent Since Court’s may bus. Expenditures of the also become permit some the dis inequality, decisions disproportionate grossly so as breed polit- general finding disparity trict court’s of is along religious divisiveness ical lines. insufficient us to hold the statute inval present grounds id on the record on cost. limits, Short these we intimate no question compar propriety we We also suggest Nor do propor- views. fixed or intra -district a dollar mile limit.7 The tion balance much with inter-district stu qualitative quantitative, is as depend on the facts will and circumstances dents: sectarian students constitu where the case. But a forbidden purpose be bused at to their tionally expense urged, leading applying We 7. have been in the event dissent in the cases the Estab- scheme, uphold statutory Clause, guidance ‘bright not entire could no lishment line’ challenged program require Clauson, validate the but is See also Zorach v. afforded.” per expenditures pupil 306, 314, not L.Ed. 954 Although an (1952) (“The problem, many problems exceed those for students. like ceiling appropriations law, of this sort and degree.”). the sort one constitutional upheld in the statute contained Cromwell Toffolon, Property supra, may Ass’n v. Owners Nothing today opinion in our be should read wise, ceiling required by be such a is not permit busing pro- a “heckler’s veto” over Constitution, the enactment of one grams. recently Donnelly As we observed legislatures state matter for the not (1st Lynch, Cir.1982), 691 F.2d As the federal courts. wrote program has ever been held invalid on Religious for Public Education and Committee grounds divisiveness alone. To render cost dif- Liberty Nyquist, 413 U.S. 761 & n. constitutionally significant, there must ferences (1973), & n. divisiveness; objective dispari- be opinions is evident from numerous “it ty palpable. also be must Court, Justices in and of concurrence and located, schools, III. Entanglement wherever relevant com- Problem of would seem to be between the rela- parison 16-21.1-3 per costs student of and sectari- tive The district court also found that busing as a whole? an an entanglement statute created excessive precise figures Without on the relevant First, church and state in several ways. costs, the effect the statute on the re- the court noted that the statute necessitat- of sectarian gionalization conjec- schools is ed a substantial increase in the number of There was no evidence any tural. administrative contacts between public and was regionalized built or church school officials in sectarian order to coordi- law, advantage of the or that transpor- take nate the details of the transportation pro- region lines were gerrymandered tation III, Jamestown gram. F.Supp. at 1051. subsidy a hidden church give existing Moreover, Second, the current schools. law does emphasized court the unaccept- church schools to permit expand not indefi- “political able risk of fragmentation and nitely area which will accept along lines”, id., division quoting A sectarian school if students. it v. Pittenger, Meek wishes enroll students from all five trans- by caused public opposition to in- regions, but under the current portation ter-district busing students. Fi- law, cannot, special circumstances, it absent nally, the court held thаt the statute on its require pay for the transporta- face created entanglement, excessive by re- of students from outside region tion the one quiring the Commissioner of Education to in which it is located —a region fixed law particular determine whether a sectarian powerless and which school is ex- “regionalized”, school is and to determine pand. whether is “similar” to another school for evils of the Should sort outlined above purpose of granting a transportation materialize, are, appellees course, free to Id. variance. return to the district court to seek addition- al relief. We hold here that on the The record does persuade not us record, and under present the controlling that the increase in administrative contacts authorities, Supreme Court the district yet problem is as magni of constitutional court’s conclusion the Rhode Island law tude. The district primary effect of court found that advancing has reli- must fall.9 gion “significant statute entailed interaction be- Warwick, 9. We do not include here the cost of inter-dis- students within versus public busing of vocational busing $121.83 for inter-district of Warwick students, only public eduсation but students in $1,436.28 to one sectarian school and regular day, special curriculum. To this per year per student another wholly students are bused under education school). disparities may Whether or not such separate from the one under considera- applied the law invalid as render in one district here, original- tion R.I.Gen.Laws § 16-24 — question but not others is a we do reach I, ly were vocational students. See Jamestown here. supra, F.Supp. addition, at 1343. In the old provision education vocational established not 10. The district court also found evidence of and, effect, five but nine schools nine trans- lines, along religious divisiveness but this divi- regions portation for vocational students. siveness, properly “politi- even denominated While vocational students at those nine schools cal”, any unrelated to differences in the under the are now bused same statute as sec- busing. persuaded We are also cost origin it is clear from its tarian difference in cost relied on small the district vocational education stands on a different foot- ($108 per per year student statewide for general curriculum, ing from the and is not an busing of sectariаn students ver- appropriate comparison element in the relevant $100 sus for intra-district stu- of costs. dents) justify drawing would not our an infer- figures We note also that the before the dis- legislative impermissible purpose, par- ence of disparities trict court showed in some districts ticularly pub- when the cost difference between greater averages. far than the statewide lic and sectarian student as a whole is III, supra, Jamestown at 1050 likely to be even smaller. ($84.27 per per year student to bus Likewise, public school and sectarian school the record does not tween us that the risk of divi provide persuade order proper officials yet is a of constitutional buses, problem sion as scheduling routing and of necessary part The record for the most magnitude. events, adjustment holidays or only specific complaints shows over the me forth”, discipline so and “to deal with busing’s In chanics of administration. one per- Id. at 1049. We are not problems”. instance, parents objected to hav Catholic suaded, however, contacts, that these stand- elementary school children bused ing their alone, program. invalidate the Unlike high with older school who were salaries or direct grants, teacher which can school. Complaints from like to direct purposes, be diverted this, however, are not properly “political” busing “secular, neutral, is nature by a only and were incidentally along religious non-ideological Lemon v. [and] service[]”. They signal lines. do not the sort of divi Kurtzman, supra, 616-17, 403 U.S. at with siveness which the cases are con at 2113. Consequently, it involves nei- cerned, for the Establishment is Clause not ther forbidden state intrusion into religious concerned with divisiveness but generally, matters, “comprehensive, nor discrimina- only political along divisiveness religious ting, continuing state surveillance” to above, lines. In the instance cited the par its confinement ensure to secular use. Id. complained parents, as ents not as Catho Rather, at 2114. the con- lics, complaint and their pub concerned the are ministerial or tacts mechanical in na- age, religion. lic students’ not their ture, administrative, and concern not reli- matters. gious, Comparable contacts are We are more ap troubled virtually busing intrinsic to programs, of a pearance large number of Catholic aрpellees have not shown that the con- parochial parents school officials at a tacts issue here are different in kind or committee meeting Newport school degree from the contacts implicitly upheld to a object proposal to eliminate Supreme Court in busing cases from altogether. Controversies of this sort more Everson to Springfield and explicitly ap- pose a risk of properly constitutionally sig Walter, in Wolman v. proved supra. See along lines, nificant division religious for in Springfield generally School District v. case, parochial parents such a have a Pennsylvania Department su- special political interest as pra, 483 Pa. at 397 A.2d at 1166-68 parents i.e., as wholly apart — Catholics — good Nor, a discussion of this issue. their status as taxpayers parents or more, do we believe without that the Com- isolated, generally. Because it was we can missioner’s determination of whether say that single not incident renders the “regionalized” entails excessive law Donnelly Rhode Island invalid. See impermissible entanglement govern- Lynch, (1st Cir.1982). 691 F.2d religion. ment and That determination is, however, It a warning signal.11 We would seеm to be a simple question, factual court, moreover, the district agree with requiring any assessment comparison facially invalid for 16-21.1-3 the fol § religious curricula. reason. lowing political 11. While scholars have criticized the Minnesota charitable solicitation statute on Es- pedigree compatibility grounds. test’s divisiveness tablishment Clause Whether or not see, e.g., representative democracy, generally, Gaff- divisiveness is a useful test Along Religious ney, Political Divisiveness persuaded appropriate we are it is an Entanglement Slop- Lines: The of the Court in here, single check where faith History Policy, py and Bad Public 24 St. Louis majority population claim as adherents of the (1980), U.L.J. 205 has say, course, Court ad- the state. This is not to test, recently in Larson v. hered to the most group necessarily position; will abuse its Valente, 228, 251-253, that, abuse, given potential checks 72 50 U.S.L.W. appropriate. (1982), where the struck down a part whether a was minor deciding grant statutory or not scheme In relatively to allow a student to be to a small number applicable variance In view region, legislature’s of the of the over- outside students. bused riding concern with the heаlth and safety of Education must Commissioner the state children, persuaded we are it whether the sectarian school that determine other provisions would enacted the wishes to attend is “similar” to the student event, independently. any there region. located within the a school been no showing contrary. has If the provision 16-21.1-3. RJ.Gen.Laws comparison on secular fac- limited were We judgment therefore affirm the of the availability of a certain tors such insofar as declared the vari- language program, or would raise sports provision of ance RJ.Gen.Laws 16-21.1-3 § entanglement Testimony concerns. be- as the infringing invalid Establishment court, however, district indicated fore the of Amendment. the First Clause As to the guide to no standards the that there of the judgment district court’s rest we of similarity, assessment Commissioner’s Although case, is a close reverse. this religion primary aspect is a of the that and that the court’s conclude district insistence compared. to be the If Commis- curricula equal access to can- be job, required does his he will sioner stand in of not the face the controlling the content and curricula of reli- examine Supreme precedents. Court in programs order determine gious part, in part. Affirmed reversed in they are similar. areWe troubled whether possibility that by the the Commissioner BREYER, Judge (concurring). Circuit engage have to in educational would After considerable debate and reflection theological even hair-splitting to perhaps members of panel agreed this that schools, compare especially where (with one minor the exception) Rhode Is- may represent the schools competing orders statute is land constitutional. The careful of a approaches single faith. or “This kind conscientious of opinion the majority ... evaluation religious of state of the con- the fact that we have all reflects found this religious organization is fraught tent of case. Given the difficulty a difficult sort of entanglement the that the Con- work and thought the majority’s Kurtzman, forbids.” stitution Lemon v. 403 reflects, I opinion tempted join am it. 620, 2115; 91 Tribe, at S.Ct. at see L. U.S. I do not do But so because there remains a American Constitutional Law disagreement significant. that I believe is Moreover, 869 even seemingly essence, that, the majority In holds while it items as library or program secular drаma technically precedent bound a minor is may pose issues, equality for one reverse, law, logic spirit, really masterpiece may be heresy. man’s another’s Indeed, to the contrary. majority runs Although the provision variance is that, writes were it not for the letter of this invalid, persuaded we are it is severa case, unargued Supreme namely, Court portions the other of ble from the statute. Department v. Springfield School District general concerning Under rules sever- Education, 539, 1154, 483 Pa. 397 A.2d the otherwise ability, portion valid of a dismissed of a appeal for want substantial can stand if it fully operative question sub School District federal nom. no showing legislature there is Education, v. Pittsburgh Department of 443 have enacted valid provisions would not 3091, 901, 99 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 869 U.S. independently. Jackson, United v. States it would the decision (1979), affirm of the 570, 1209, 88 S.Ct. 390 U.S. 20 L.Ed.2d 138 court. of the Members Jamestown also (1968). See Chartier Estate Real Co. v. Schmidt, Committee v. 525 F.Supp. Chafee, 544, 101 R.I. 225 A.2d (1967) 766 (D.R.I.1981). But, I do agree not 1045 (remainder need not fall where voided sec panel’s upon result this rests so slender a indispensable Moreover, is not to the other parts tion reed. I believe the precedential act). Herе, provision -the variance Clause calls for a more Establishment 53, problem (1967) approach type (constitutionality “practical” upheld even if paro children comparatively ap- “theoretical” financial bene schools receive indirect taken district court chial proach appeal dismissed want busing), fit from panel. of this the court’s majority Since question, federal of a substantial reconsideration of Spring- invites opinion (1967); State 88 S.Ct. field, appropriate why I explain ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍it seems Education, v. Board of Hughes ex rel. court wrong the district in hold- believe appeal (1970), 174 S.E.2d W.Va. Island statute unconstitu- ing the Rhode denied, and cert. 403 U.S. dismissed tional. (1971)). my L.Ed.2d 854 Everson Board is wrong, the district court’s decision view 330 U.S. simply it conflicts with the because (1947) held that specifically L.Ed. case, but be disposition Springfield of the Clause the United States Establishment aspects it is with several inconsistent cause (“as does not forbid a state Constitution firmly principle. of this more established program,” of a id. at general part First, any sig- the record does not reveal 512) pay transporting against “religions nificant favoritism Catholic, as public, well as to children theory practice. Tor- nonbelievers” The Court reasoned that a law schools. Watkins, caso provides transporting school chil that 1680, 1683, 982 The dis- 6 L.Ed.2d promotes is a that “the welfare dren law favoritism court found theoretical 14, id. at 67 general public,” the S.Ct. at to a finding sufficient warrant (presumably 511, provides much like a law that “ordi see, Wolman v. unconstitutionality, e.g., protection, and fire nary police connections 2593, Walter, sewage disposal, public highways pro- (1977) (field trip sidewalks,” at 67 id. at 512. As S.Ct. held unconstitutional because of “un- gram such, the held not that it was acceptable fostering religion”)) risk of “which is type designed support law to the fact that Catholic school students teach religion.” which Id. institutions right transportation outside greater This 14, 67 at 511. is principle clearly public districts” than do school stu- “school in Everson. clearly It has been enunciated fact is for the But this irrelevant dents. in many (see, e.g., later cases Crom applied favoritism, finding a theoretical purposes Association, Property Owners Inc. v. well districts” the court for the “school that Toffolon, F.Supp. (D.Conn.1979) 495 915 districts, public discussed school issue to (very bar); similar that in case at werе pub- of which drawn with boundaries Kline, v. 486 F.Supp. (E.D.Pa.) Bennett 36 than parochial schools rather schools in lic aff’d, (3d Cir.1980) 633 F.2d (same), 209 hardly surprising It is that each mind. opinion); (without published Snyder v. school is not located in the center Catholic Newton, 374, 377-79, 147 Town of Conn. public program school district. A of each 770, 772-73 (constitutionality 161 A.2d even approximately equal seeks ab- that busing upheld even though transportation solutely identical treatment for Catholic created private schools “some additional likely students will trans- public school town”) expense appeal dismissed for some school students across port Catholic of a question, want substantial federal Presuma- school district boundaries. public (1961); L.Ed.2d 688 U.S. will some school be bly, public students Regional Morris West Board of Education (if taken across Catholic school boundaries Sills, (busing N.J. A.2d 609 exist) It is simply such boundaries well. specified cost within limit for students to possible inequality for a theoretical not up to twenty schools miles private away the fact will from that arise denied, upheld), cert. some school students across take (1971); Springfield L.Ed.2d 370 boundaries. public school Department District v. School supra; Abington Townshiр very Rhoades would have differ- The matter been District, found, practi- 424 Pa. as a A.2d ent had matter, of a the “survey theoretical no provide[d] cal instead information as obtain a disproportionate schools Catholic how the costs were reported calculated.” they serve because students benefit Members of the Jamestown School Commit- significantly that are than regions larger Schmidt, tee v. The districts. local school But the record court also noted that some areas a school contrary. The of- suggests defendants more pay had to much for transporting which no suggests evidence mat- fered to a particular Catholic school than viewed, problem ter how the Catholic But the public school. district court practical advantage. receive Ac- this case on ground did decide data, this cording to 1978-1979 the state practical advantage or significant differ- 90,000 nearly stu- transported school ence in costs. To transport the contrary, 8,300 religious about stu- dents and school accepted apparently figures defendant’s apparently paid It over million dents. $10 that, held arguendo, and while it was some- transportation, school merely but expensive religious what more to bus school $850,000 than a little more students outside school districts than transportation. fact, school if one focus- to bus school students within students who only upon es were bused out- districts, how much this difference districts, local public side of their one “unimportant.” be might Id. at 1051. more public finds students were The dollar per statewide differences in (2,864) than religious bused school students expenditures of the sort pupil introduced (1,154). (perhaps many public And because case, however, support this could not a con transported school students across district law, matter, as a practical clusion handicapped children) lines were total impermissibly favors Catholic schools over public school inter-district The public schools. differences are de min million while paro- bill was $2 impossible imis. It would be $125,000. for a state cost less chial guaranteed create a ab system produce however, figure, relevant most Indeed, of costs. equality solute the state’s per cost transportation pupil. The defend- figures greater could reflect far disparities suggest that figures pupil the cost per ant’s close to the they type before came of favor transportation public for within dis- school itism that has been held to cause a constitu per public tricts was student $100 school See, problem. tional eg., Springfield student; per school the $102 v. Department District for per pupil transportation cost outside 9, 397 (“A Pa. n. A.2d at at 558 1164 n. 9 districts was public per parochi- school $108 but constitutional consideration would arise per school student school public $702 al (perhaps reflecting transportation of bus- only student cost if the cost handicapped students). (in- Taking attending sectarian so students schools was intra-district) ter- transportation costs that it disproportionate apparent became the state’s together, costs amounted to the transportation provided pub to the per public school pupil about $120 $103 to youngster merely lic school a ruse school per religious pupil. pu confer a benefit to the sectarian school Kline, pil.”); Bennett F.Supp. at figures implausi- are not inherently These fact, they (adopting Springfield rationale); are fully with Cromwell ble. cоnsistent live, hypothesis Association, Catholic Property Owners Inc. v. Toffo a bit average, further from schools lon, their (“At at 923 some point, all, school public than students. in a After transportation cost of inter-district for stu like pupil small state Rhode Island per attending be dents costs may be more transport a function of grossly disproportionate compared come so to which an bus the extent individual is ordinary expense school students than filled with of the distance region that the ‘indirect’ benefits in traveled. accruing to alization sectarian institutions court constitutionally significant The district did not these will rise to a “accord weight,” figures great level.”). because cost differentials in isolated primarily The relevant, transportation support safety for child cases, little in possibly prove while themselves, for the church. support isolated rather than other Education, 330 school presumably Everson v. Board instances so, ought private. The issue at If there to be expensive 67 S.Ct. at 512. more whole; the plan effect of as a is the for a state to do what it has way stake a feasible does not become unconsti- draft a policе protection namely, statute right a do— precinct in one because it is un- proportionate- tutional pays transportation church, protect nor usually expensive a thus experience sug- Rhode Island’s far ly. because in one neighborhood protection fire said this is easier than done. gests is made The alone of wood. church And, one test the more “theoretical” might uncertainty compara- court’s about what, if this by asking statute approach warrant at would the most fur- tive costs unconstitutional, legislature here were development matter ther factual were the it done? have con- ought have Should questionable. more Rhode Island’s Catholic school stu- fined districts, even though school dents Second, transportation is neu- many districts contain Catholic schools? It divides its face. the state into tral on it have bused student the bor- Should provides that: regions and district, where the child can der such a attending school, pupil including A boundary across the and board the walk school, school, vocational provided it next district’s bus? Should ..., program a consolidated education can be bused that Catholic students ..., ..., rеgional school or a happen schools that those Catholic to be non-profit school ... shall be non-public middle located in the bus provided with to the it have district? Should said that school attends, which the facility pupil attend a Catholic children who school that region re- pupil within which the to be located on the be- happens boundary .... sides public school districts A and B can be tween 16-21.1-2 (1981). R.I.Gen.Laws Can a B; A, they live in but not or that bused this statute court find unconstitutional sim- they can bused if live in either be can find ply (set- it another statute because separate (and district but must travel on which, up public districts) ting buses so that expensive) hence more neither the transportation stat- combination bus crosses the district line? fact that it ute, (wrongly, view) what my creates to think of a statute that it is difficult as a theoretical advantage conceives approach of the district satisfy would department a fire Catholics? Does violate plausible statutory and the fact that Clause if buys equip- the Establishment arbitrary only tangential- seem or solutions enough to reach a ment tall church dome if ly any related to serious Establishment zoning equipment laws mаke the unneces- objective suggest the more Clause buildings? so, for other If more sary wrong. approach “theoretical” is If Ever- case, of this purposes does the important right, way be a apply son is there should strike general Establishment Clause down it in Rhode Island. would authorize expendi- laws that if in fact the higher tures even dome is no Fourth, concerned, here else I am buildings? My point that, than other is where, practice combining sev about Clause the Establishment strikes down such statutes to find in combi eral different law, it must “expenditure” an do so because preference, which is nation theoretical lead to the law will disproportionate- fact In then held unconstitutional. Usher ly expenditures in- large favoring religious (1st Schweiker, 666 F.2d Cir. stitutions, there not because ais theoretical 1981), Equal Pro pointed out do so at it could some other time possibility automatically invali tection Clause does not place. or some other that statute simply because date produce Third, with another practical there are other considera- can be combined law, long pro- as Everson is unfair or even irrational. tions. As result that seems Rаther, laws, number of expenditure given state school the vast portionate on regulations, any illustration). Yet, rules absolute “ration- validity the Justice requirement, total net result” as applied per costs, al made no calculation of pupil laws, combinations of different no possible maps school district mentioned lines— legislating though trolley unworkable would make even local rarely lines pay The same to school too difficult. is true here. It is heed district boundaries. The Amendment, all, of laws that First after easy might impartial. to think combine It transportation, plays favorites between police protection public pri- fire vate school produce and that advantages impartiality statutes theoretical implies penalize that it not religious parochial institutions. A state law the basis of school dis- day p.m., giv- end 4:00 lines. possible It is for expenditures ing Catholic school students the theoretical for a neutral purpose like school transport right (and take buses at different more weighted to be too heavily in favor of reli- expensive) times. A state may place law gious school students and thus to offend the schools in safer areas of the city, However, Constitution. the question of protection making police for private reli- constitutionality in such a case is primarily gious potentially more costly. A effect, question practical measured in may require law state schools to be terms of costs incurred the state and fire-proof material, built of making fire actual benefit conferred on the protection schools potentially school student. No unconstitutional practi- expensive. problems more The engendered cal effect has been demonstrated here. For combining different statutes and then reason, this and not simply because of whether, asking in theory, the combination Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Spring- Catholic students gives something their case, agree field I with the court’s result. counterparts are denied are that rise in not ones this case to a constitu- agree I also 16-21.1-3 (providing tional level. ease with which statutes to a school outside a student’s to produce can be combined possible differ- region where “there is no similar school suggests that a ences court should examine region”) within the is unconstitutional. significance of these differences giving Rhode Island commissioner of practice. education the authority to examine the reli- gious content of school’s curricu- reasons, For these unlike the majority of lum and then judgments to make about the panel, I do not find it surprising that propriety based on that examina- Court dismissed Springfield tion, the section entangles church and state for want of a substantial federal question. in a manner that Establishment Clause surprised am I Nor that other cases have designed prevent. Springfield. followed e.g., See Cromwell Property Association, Owners Inc. v. Toffo- The Supreme Court has severely limited a lon, supra; Kline, Bennett v. supra. In- power court’s intervene in religious dis- deed, Justice Black in Everson noted that putes, even to decide property matters. have required the state could “a local tran- Presbyterian Church in the United company to provide sit reduced fares to Mary States Elizabeth Blue Hill Memori- children including those attending Church, Presbyterian al schools, or ... a municipally 601, (1969) (courts S.Ct. transportation system owned [could have] theological not consider issues when resolv- carry schoоl children undertake[n] ing property disputes between religious charge.” free of These schemes would have Freund, bodies). See Public Aid to Parochi- fully been constitutional as the plan Schools, (1969). al 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1680 Of adopt, did he explained, state for the denial state,” the “wall course between church and of such services was “obviously pur- not the Education, v. Everson Board of 330 at U.S. pose of the First Amendment.” Everson v. 18, 513, at 67 is not absolute. A S.Ct. state 17-18, Board 330 U.S. at 67 instance, may, inspect religious 513; Walter, see at Wolman v. S.Ct. 433 to see that meet the state’s educational 253, at at (reaffirming U.S. S.Ct. standards. See Board of Education v. Al- 246 n.

len, 7, 20 (1968). Similarly, n. L.Ed.2d 1060 to religious textbooks may provide despite consequent risks of 244-45, See id. at

entanglement. 1927; Walter, v. at ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍Wolman U.S. 2599-2600; Meek v.

Pittenger, Freund, generally See Yet, it is difficult in this case to

supra. strong educational or other reason any

find state’s commissioner of educa have the the theological orientation of examine

tion school to determine whether a

one inter-regional busing is entitled to

student legis another. The Rhode Island attend should be able to redraft this severa

lature to limit inter-regional busing in section

ble way. less intrusive America, Appellee, STATES

UNITED

v. HENSEL, David Keith Defendant, also 509 1364 and 509 Appellant. F.Supp. 1376. America, UNITED STATES of Appellee, Wayne CASE, Larry Gerald Duke, Ronald t Hubbard, Rober Curtis Charles Thad Standley and John Wells, Jacob Defend ants, Appellants. America,

UNITED STATES of Appellee,

Creig DILL, Defendant, Appellant. Lee

Nos. 81-1538 to 81-1540.

United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.

Argued Oct. 1982.

Decided Jan. 1983.

Rehearing and En Rehearing Banc Denied

in No. 81-1538 Feb. En Banc Rehearing

Rehearing 81-1539 in Nos.

Denied - 9,1983. March 31,1983.

Certiorari Denied May

See 103 S.Ct. 2431.

Case Details

Case Name: Members of the Jamestown School Committee v. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt, as Commissioner of Education of the State of Rhode Island

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jan 19, 1983

Citation: 699 F.2d 1

Docket Number: 82-1081

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.