Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
United States Supreme Court
509 U.S. 1 (1993)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
James Zobrest (plaintiff) was a student in Tucson, Arizona who had been deaf since birth. Zobrest attended a school for the deaf until the sixth grade. From the sixth grade to the eighth grade, Zobrest attended a public school in the Catalina Foothills School District (the district) (defendant). Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the district provided Zobrest with a sign-language interpreter during his enrollment. Zobrest then enrolled in a private, Catholic high school, beginning with the ninth grade, for religious reasons. Zobrest and his parents requested that the district continue to provide him with a sign-language interpreter at the private school. The county attorney determined that providing an interpreter would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Arizona attorney general agreed with the county attorney. The district then declined to provide the interpreter. Zobrest sued the district, claiming that the district’s decision violated his rights under the IDEA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed with the district that providing Zobrest with a sign-language interpreter would violate the Establishment Clause. Zobrest appealed, and court of appeals affirmed the decision. Zobrest then sought review from the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
