Atlanta Public Schools (under new leadership) Sues for a Clear Title to Old Schools

Just made public today (but apparently filed at the end of March 2015), Atlanta Public Schools is requesting that the courts declare the legal titles for four elementary schools are clear -- so that APS can sell the old properties (not in current use), recoup the monies, and go on about the business of cleaning up the mess it made better educating children.  At the heart of this lawsuit is a dispute of words and public relations between APS and the City of Atlanta, namely the Mayor of Atlanta. 

Read more about APS's efforts to move forward and the horsetrading the Mayor has attempted to stall APS plans:

http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/05/01/aps-files-lawsuit-to-gain-full-control-of-four-vacant-school-deeds

Here are some quotes for context:

Mayor Kasim Reed earlier this year said several vacant schools remain part of the ongoing negotiations in the APS-Atlanta Beltline funding dispute. But APS Superintendent Meria Carstarphen disagreed, saying the deeds weren't part of those discussions. Reed responded to her remarks saying that the superintendent "doesn't know what she's talking about" regarding the dispute, which still remains unresolved.

According to the March 26 filing, which seeks to "establish title against all the world," the city should have transferred over all contracts, orders, leases, and bonds to the Atlanta Board of Education as part of the city's charter adopted in 1973. That shift in responsibility also should have included the ownership of all properties the city had acquired to provide a public education to Atlanta children when it oversaw the school system. Since that time, the lawsuit says, the city's education board has paid millions in costs associated with the upkeep of those four vacant schools.

The Most Compelling Points of Hobby Lobby (the dissent that is)

In light of the huge decision yesterday from the Supreme Court of the United States in Hobby Lobby et al., here are portions of the dissent where Justice Ginsburg speaks so eloquently on several points -- with which I agree.

On Corporations as "people"

“In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations.  One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 19).

“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. . . . Again, the Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 17, 18).

On impact of corporate owner's religious beliefs (permitted to be exercised through a for-profit entity) on third-parties (i.e. employees)

“Women paid significantly more than men for preventive care, the amendment’s proponents noted; in fact, cost barriers operated to block many women from obtaining needed care at all. See, e.g., id., at 29070 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (“Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.”); id., at 29302 (statement of Sen. Mikulski) (“co-payments are [often] so high that [women] avoid getting preventative and screening services] in the first place”).” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 4).  “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage . . . that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor . . . and that only one-fourth of women who request an IUD actually have one inserted after finding out how expensive it would be . . . .” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 25).  

“Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. . . . Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 23).

No Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

The 4th Amendment and (good) social policy have a joint win with 1 stone:   the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has struck down a Florida state law requiring welfare applicants to be drug tested. The case is a Lebron v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Families, Case No. 6:11-CV-01473-MSS-DAB (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2014)


According to recent reports (see here), the Florida law

required parents to undergo and pay for urine tests for illegal drugs when they applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal-state program that helps poor people with children pay for food, shelter and necessities.

The penalty for refusal to take the required test was a denial of the benefits.  Said another way, an applicant was required to submit themselves for screening by the government to help get help paying for food.  The justification for the law was in the interests of the public.

According to the Federal Court's decision, the Florida law was temporarily halted back in October 2011 until a federal court could sort the whole thing out.

More after the break...