Spending Clause

At the end of 2011, 34 million people were living with HIV, according to the World Health Organization, and AIDS took the lives of 1.7 million people that same year. In 2003, Congress took action to prevent the spread of infectious diseases worldwide by passing the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act or Act). The Act designates federal funds to non-governmental organizations that fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS so long as the organization also opposes prostitution and sex trafficking. Petitioner United States Agency for International Development (USAID) argues that this policy requirement targets prostitution and sex trafficking as significant contributors to the spread of HIV/AIDS while minimally impacting, if at all, the speech of a federally funded organization. In contrast, respondent Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) argues that the policy requirement violates the protections of the First Amendment by forcing a federally funded organization to adopt a viewpoint that may not only be insensitive to localized concerns regarding the trust of victims but also may distort public debate by inhibiting field research.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In 2000, T.A.'s parents realized that their son was a troubled teenager, and though it was suspected that he might have a learning disability, his school district determined that he was not disabled and therefore not entitled to special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. T.A.'s problems continued and in 2003 his parents placed him in a private school. In 2004, a hearing officer determined that T.A. was disabled, and that because Forest Grove School District had failed to offer him free appropriate public education, the district had to reimburse T.A.'s parents for the cost of the private school. The school district appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that damages were not required because T.A.'s parents removed him unilaterally, without his ever having received special education services from a public agency. In this case, the Court will determine whether parents can unilaterally make this decision and then expect the school district to reimburse them, or if they must wait for action by the school district.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine when an individual, private right is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. South Carolina’s executive order deems abortion clinics enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and its patient, Julie Edwards, contend that the executive order violates Ms. Edwards’s right to choose a qualified provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), the any-qualified-provider provision. South Carolina counters that the any-qualified-provider fails to create a private right of action enforceable through § 1983 because Congress did not use unambiguously clear rights-creating language. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for Medicaid beneficiaries and providers, the implementation of state and federal healthcare policy goals, and the litigation of private rights. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Under the Solomon Amendment, law schools that receive federal funding are forced to provide the same access to career placement services to military recruiters that they provide to other employers. This requirement conflicts with most law schools' policies of non-discrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (“FAIR”) has challenged the Solomon Amendment on two grounds. First, they argue that the Amendment is an unconstitutional condition that infringes their freedom of speech. Second, FAIR argues that law schools are “expressive associations” whose right to free speech and dissemination of a chosen message is impaired by the forced accommodation of military recruiters on campus. The Court of Appeals, in ruling for FAIR, held that the Solomon Amendment unconstitutionally impairs expressive conduct and that the Government has not shown a compelling interest that justifies denying this freedom. The case is significant because it will determine whether, specifically, law schools are able to bar military recruiters from campus without losing federal funding, and, more broadly, whether certain associations may qualify for federal funding but remain constitutionally protected from disseminating a message with which they do not agree.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources