R(E) v. Governing Body of JFS
United Kingdom Supreme Court
[2009] UKSC 15 (2009)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
E (plaintiff) wanted to send his 13-year-old son, M, to JFS (defendant), a Jewish comprehensive school in London. At the time, JFS had an admission policy favoring applicants who were Jewish as defined by the Office of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of the Commonwealth (OCR). The OCR defined Judaism in matrilineal terms, meaning the mother’s religious views determined whether the child was considered Jewish. M’s mother was born into a Roman Catholic, Italian family. While M’s mother did convert in a manner recognized by many Jewish sects, her conversion was not recognized as Jewish by the OCR. M was, therefore, not considered Jewish for the purposes of admission to JFS despite being raised in a Masorti synagogue. JFS informed E that M was unlikely to be admitted, because the school was oversubscribed and because he was not Jewish under the OCR definition. E sued JFS, arguing that the school’s admission policy constituted racial discrimination, thereby violating the Race Relations Act 1976. The England and Wales Court of Appeal found that JFS’s policy violated the Race Relations Act 1976, and JFS appealed to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, C.J.)
Concurrence (Hale, J.)
Dissent (Hope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.