Home » Legal Advocacy

Legal Advocacy

NSBA and CSBA Urge Court to Use Fairness Principles in Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Special Education Litigation

K.G. v. Irvine Unified School District (9th Cir.)

Special Education & Disabilities: IDEA - is a prevailing party entitled to "automatic attorneys' fees and costs or is a court required to consider the degree of success achieved by the “prevailing party” in determining the size and appropriateness of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs 

Filed March 25, 2015

Response to November 12 Dear Colleague Letter

This is NSBA's response to a recent “Dear Colleague Letter” (DCL) on how to appropriately meet the communication needs of IDEA-eligible students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities. The DCL to which the NSBA objects was jointly issued by three federal agencies and offices — the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights — on Nov. 12, 2014

Richardson v. State of North Carolina (N.C. Sup. Ct.)

Privatization & School Choice: Vouchers – whether state’s private school voucher program violates state constitution

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (U.S. Sup. Ct. - Merits Brief)

Employment Discrimination: Title VII – duty to provide religious accommodation in the absence of actual notice of need for accommodation

2015 Advocacy Institute Legal Advocacy Background Materials

This document provides background information on the following legal advocacy items that will be discussed in the 2015 Advocacy Institute

  • Legal Issues Brief on the Growing Federal Intrusion
  • NSBA Amicus Brief: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
  • NSBA Amicus Brief: Ridley School District v. M.R.
  • NSBA Federal Insider 2014 Issues
  • NSBA Comments on DOJ Proposed Amendments to Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations

Ohio v. Clark (U.S. Sup. Ct. - Merits Brief)

Legal System: Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause - teacher/school staff requirement to report suspected child abuse under state mandatory reporting law - are teachers/staff agents of law enforcement for purposes of Confrontation Clause - does a minor student's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to teacher's concern about potential child abuse qualify as "testimonial" statements subject to the Confrontation Clause

NSBA and Leading Teachers’ Groups Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Ohio High Court Ruling Imperiling Child Abuse Reporting Processes

Alexandria, VA (Nov. 24, 2014) —NSBA, in support of the State of Ohio, has joined the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA) today in filing a “friend of the court” (amicus) brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Ohio v. Clark. At issue in this case is whether teachers or other school personnel who serve as mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse should be treated as law enforcement agents for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, a constitutional protection under the Sixth Amendment that grants those accused of a crime the right to confront witnesses.

NSBA Urges the U.S. Supreme Court to Require a Notice-and-Comment Period Before Federal Agencies Change Significant Interpretive Rules

Alexandria, Va. (Oct.17, 2014) — The National School Boards Association (NSBA) joined a “friend of the court” (amicus) brief filed by the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) and multiple signatories that asks the High Court to affirm the District of Columbia Circuit’s holding in the case of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association. At issue is whether state and local governments should be notified and allowed to comment before federal agencies change interpretations of their own regulations.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Legal Advocacy
Go to top