Eulitt v. Maine Dep’t of Education

AU's Role: 
AU's Involvement Began: 
June 2006
Status: 

This case is, on the merits, identical to the Anderson v. Town of Durham case, but it was brought by different plaintiffs and in a different court system (federal rather than state). A Magistrate recommended on August 8, 2003 that the court rule that the Constitution does not require the funding of a parochial education. The plaintiffs filed objections to that ruling. In March 2004, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Davey, the Judge affirmed the Magistrate’s recommendation. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the First Circuit. We filed an amicus brief with the Circuit on June 30, 2004, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Locke v. Davey resolves the case in the defendants’ favor. On October 22, 2004, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, relying in large part on Locke. The plaintiffs elected not to seek rehearing or certiorari, so the case is now concluded.

 

Most Recent Developments: