The U.S. legal system shares many features with the science of geology. According to geologists, new rocks are laid down over the old in a continual process of building. Newer rocks may command more immediate attention, but the old rocks are still there, deeper but providing a foundation for the new. The process of accretion of new material over old resembles the growth of the law. New decisions are continually added to the body of the old, but the old law still remains as foundation. In legal terminology, this is the principle of stare decisis. New court decisions and laws continually build upon and add to the older body of law, but the old decisions remain and become the substratum on which the newer decisions stand. More recent decisions must be based on the precedents established by prior court decisions.

Rock formations, like legal decisions, can extend over large expanses of territory, or they can be local and unique. This situation is analogous to the legal principle of controlling authority. Subsequent court decisions cannot contradict prior decisions that are controlling in its jurisdictional area, except on the rare occasions where a court declares that its own former ruling is no longer good law. Said another way, not every court decision has the power to influence subsequent decisions in every locality. Some decisions apply only locally; others are more geographically widespread in their applicability. For example, a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruling that a certain school district in Chester County, Pennsylvania, may legally require students to wear school uniforms applies only in that district and is not controlling authority statewide or in other states. A court ruling from the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is controlling authority for court decisions in the eastern part of Pennsylvania, and it may be persuasive authority in other parts of Pennsylvania or in nearby states. Similarly, a court decision handed down in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is controlling authority for court deliberations in all the states of the Third Circuit: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. States in the Third Circuit must decide cases in conformity with the rulings of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Courts in other states with similar demographics, when faced with similar factual circumstances, may find a particular Third Circuit decision persuasive and may defer to it by ruling in accordance with it, but they are not legally bound to do so.

Continuing with the geologic analogy, geologists observe that every now and then a volcanic eruption occurs and completely covers the landscape with new, and perhaps foreign, rock. This is the geological counterpart of a Supreme Court decision. When the volcano that is the Supreme Court belches forth a decision, the law of the land changes. However, like a volcano, the Supreme Court cannot erupt at will. Pressure for the eruption must build. The Court must wait until circumstances present to it a case that is ripe for decision, and the decision it renders must address only the question presented. In a sense, the new rock laid down by a Supreme Court decision covers only certain streaks of existing rock. The other rock, not covered by the Court decision, remains stare decisis, and it may be controlling or merely persuasive authority, depending on its origin and geographic applicability.

Other details of the U.S. legal system defy analogy with tenets of geology or any other discipline, which is why law schools proliferate and prosper. Law students must learn

• Precepts of common law, the heritage of the United States' former status as a colony of Great Britain;
• Peculiarities of state constitutions and laws, under which states can, because of their own unique 17th- and 18th-century origins as autonomous civic entities, give more protections to their citizens than the U.S. Constitution bestows; and, of course,
• Details of federal constitutional law and federal statutes.

Purpose and Goal of the Book

Educators alone cannot negotiate the slopes and crevasses of the multifaceted mountain that is U.S. jurisprudence. In assessing the legal implications of school bullying and harassment, as in many aspects of what educators must contend with on a daily basis, legal counsel is critical. However, neither school administrators nor teachers typically have lawyers resident in their offices or classrooms. Many school situations require an immediate and specific response. District counsel is not always available when potentially explosive situations arise and immediate action is required. Educators need to know how to administer “first aid” in such situations. That is the purpose and goal of this book: to present, in language readily understandable to administrators, teachers, and other school personnel, basic information about the legal issues surrounding school bullying, harassment in the school setting, and student threats; and to provide practical and specific recommendations for both short- and long-term responses the school community must undertake. The book also attempts to provide, as “Annotated References and Resources” at the end of each chapter, specific references to court decisions and statutes that will enable school attorneys or other interested members of the educational community to research primary sources.

Just as educators have many legal authorities, statutes, and precedents to take into account when reacting to instances of harassment in the school setting, so the alleged victims of school-related bullying or harassment have many avenues of recourse. The most problematic of these for educators may be an alleged victim's resorting to litigation, either as a first response or when all other avenues for redress have failed. In situations in which harm is either perceived or real, aggrieved parties may follow the school district's prescribed avenues for filing complaints or appeal to agencies charged with enforcing victims' rights statutes (e.g., the Department of Justice, the Office for Civil Rights, or the state or federal Department of Education). Factual situations and prior dealings with schools often determine the paths students, parents, or other affected parties select, but the failure of educators nearest to the problem to address controllable situations exacerbates both the issues and the actions taken by those who feel victimized.

Issues in Litigation

Individuals who seek redress of perceived injuries through the court system have relatively few initial hurdles. Lawyers are readily available to handle cases for plaintiffs, even on a contingency fee basis, especially if potential lawsuits include recovery of substantial monetary damages or attorneys' fees. Individuals may also be representative of an entire class of victims, making a class action suit a possibility, with the concomitant return of even greater monetary reward for damages, in which the lawyer can share.

Except for cases of fraud where allegations of wrongdoing must be pleaded with particular attention to detail, court rules in civil cases allow for notice pleading. Notice pleading allows alleged victims to bring suit in court before all the facts are known, relying on depositions and other methods of investigation and discovery to uncover the details of the defendant's wrongdoing. In criminal lawsuits the state actually brings the charges on behalf of the plaintiff.

Legal strategy is important for both the alleged victim and the defendant, whether individual, representative of a class, public official, or school board. The alleged wrong or asserted statutory violation determines the standard of review the court will apply. The standard of review, in turn, often determines the outcome of the case. For example, if a plaintiff alleges deprivation of a constitutional right by the government or government official, the court will apply the strictest standard of review. The government will have to show that its actions served a compelling state interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve its goal in a manner that least impacted individual freedom. On the other hand, if the alleged governmental deprivation does not concern a constitutionally protected interest, the standard of review may be less stringent. The government will be required to demonstrate a rational reason for the limitation of the individual's freedom, but a rational reason is easier to justify than a compelling reason. Standards of review intermediate between these two extremes also exist. In all cases, the standard of review a court applies influences the outcome of the decision.

Causes of Action

If a bullied, harassed, or threatened student or school employee seeks relief through litigation in the courts, several approaches are possible, and they are not mutually exclusive. The student (through her parents or caregivers) or the employee may assert one or more causes of action in one lawsuit. Injured parties may sue school districts or individuals within the district in their personal as well as official capacities, or all three simultaneously. Causes of action can include both civil and criminal suits alleging violations of constitutional rights, both state and federal; violations of rights guaranteed by state or federal statutes; or violations of common law duties, as when an aggrieved party alleges a tort such as negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

School districts are entities constituted by the state. Therefore, school officials and educators within a school district are state actors, against whom the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights operate. State actors cannot deprive either students or school personnel of basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If they do, the affected party can bring a suit alleging violation of a federal constitutional right. However, a constitutional cause of action can serve as either a sword or a shield. The victim of harassment or threats at the hands of school personnel may allege violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against forcible governmental seizure. A school bully or harasser, on the other hand, may defend her actions as speech or expressive conduct that merits protection as “pure speech” under the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees that speech and expression be free of governmental restraint.

The alleged harasser may also assert violation of her rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to due process means that before disciplinary action is taken against a student, the student must be given notice of the charges against her and provided an opportunity to respond. Generally, the more serious the discipline involved, the more extensive are the student's due process rights. In cases of minor infractions meriting relatively minor discipline, an informal hearing in the principal's office, with an opportunity for the student to tell her side of the story, may be all that is required. However, in cases where suspension or expulsion is contemplated, school districts must afford students more formal proceedings; in some cases, these include the opportunity to call witnesses, have legal counsel present, and appeal in cases of adverse decisions.

In conjunction with a Fourteenth Amendment claim, the victim of harassment or threats may also assert that her civil rights have been violated. Several federal statutes prohibit discrimination that would violate an individual's civil rights. One such statute is Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. Originally enacted by Congress as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act and also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983 was designed to provide a means for freed slaves to enforce the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment and to protect against infringement of their constitutional rights by state officials. To succeed in a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that the alleged violation of civil rights occurred “under color of state law,” that is, at the hand of a state actor; and that the alleged violation deprived the plaintiff of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or by a federal statute. Section 1983 is frequently appended as a cause of action in school-related lawsuits because it provides for payment of attorneys' fees by the non-prevailing party in certain egregious cases.

Several other federal antidiscrimination laws provide protections based on different civil rights and may serve as causes of action for plaintiffs deprived of educational benefits. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnic background in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Although recent court decisions suggest that individuals can bring suit under Title VI only for intentional discrimination, complaints that an educational program or activity has a discriminatory effect, even if unintentional, can be made to the Office for Civil Rights which investigates and reports violations to the Department of Justice.

Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace, is also a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Teachers and other paid school district employees may bring suit under Title VII if they suffer adverse employment actions because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Often recognized as modeled on Title VI, Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities receiving federal funds. Although Title IX is most familiar to the public in the context of parity of school athletic programs for men and women, its stated purpose was to encourage women to participate in intellectually demanding programs of study on an equal footing with men. Individuals may bring an action in court if educational benefits or opportunities are denied on account of sex, or if gender-based harassment causes deprivation of educational opportunities or benefits.

Other federal laws provide protections against discrimination based on disabilities or handicaps, even though they did not originate as civil rights statutes or are not exclusively addressed to the educational setting. Moreover, state constitutions and state laws often parallel these federal protections or even provide more expansive protections to alleged victims. Subsequent chapters will address these issues in more detail.

Besides violations of constitutional rights or rights guaranteed by specific statutes, aggrieved parties may bring causes of action under common law theories. Negligence is a tort, or civil cause of action, that originates in the common law. Four elements must be present in asserting a cause of action for negligence. First, there must be a duty. For example, an aggrieved party can assert that school officials have a duty of caring for students. Next, that duty must be breached. Third, the breach of the duty must be the cause of the injury asserted. Finally, quantifiable damage must occur as a result of the breach. Victims of bullying may assert negligence on the part of school personnel but may not be able to quantify damages. Bullying or harassment that originated in school may occur and escalate outside school. Courts generally will not hold school districts responsible for actions over which the school has no direct authority.

Defenses to Litigation

In addition, school officials and school districts often may assert affirmative defenses to many causes of action raised in litigation. Even if a school official or school employee has been negligent, the district itself may argue that it should not be held liable for the actions of its employees under the theory of sovereign immunity. The defense of sovereign immunity is based on the premise that allowing individuals to sue and recover monetary damages from governmental entities would divert public monies to the good of only a few and deplete the state treasury. Such depletion of funds would disadvantage the general public, whose taxes support public education.

Although sovereign immunity is a defense available to school districts as entities, school officials sued in their personal capacities may assert a different defense: the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity, in a nutshell, is available if a doubt exists about whether the school official's action was actually illegal. For example, a teacher who disciplined an unruly student by duct-taping him to his chair may assert qualified immunity because such punishment is not prohibited in the teacher's district. However, once it is established that duct taping is a prohibited corporal punishment in that district, the defense of qualified immunity is not available. The essence of qualified immunity is that while ignorance of the law is never an excuse, in some cases, absence of a law may be.

Motions to Dismiss

For better or for worse, many plaintiffs who bring causes of action against school districts or school employees never get their day in court. Many court cases are resolved even before actual evidence is presented because they do not survive motions to dismiss made by defendants. Just about anyone can allege a cause of action for just about any perceived injury against just about any school district or school employee. The only requirement is that the injury be presented properly before the court. However, courts have limited time and limited resources; mechanisms must be in place to resolve frivolous or unfounded lawsuits expeditiously. Hence, the availability of the motion to dismiss.

Immediately after the plaintiff files suit, before any evidence is presented by either party to the suit, the defendant may move to dismiss the suit. The court then decides, on its own, whether there is any legal theory under which the cause of action presented can survive. If the court rules that there is not, the court grants the motion to dismiss, and the lawsuit ends there. The plaintiff, unhappily, has lost her lawsuit before it even really began. Rulings on motions to dismiss can then deter other plaintiffs from bringing similar causes of action.

The applicable standard of review for a defendant's motion to dismiss is that a court may grant the motion only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff has no legal argument that would support a decision in her favor. The court must examine the facts stated in the plaintiff's complaint, and decide, giving the plaintiff every benefit of the doubt, whether the “wrong” described by the plaintiff is recognized as a violation of a legal right. Granting a motion to dismiss ends a lawsuit before it officially begins.

In some cases, however, the court refuses to dismiss the suit. This action may encourage the parties to reach an out-of-court settlement. Refusals to dismiss also have significance; they signal the plaintiff that similar causes of action will likely be recognized as viable causes of action.

Sometimes cases cannot be decided until both sides present evidence for the court to consider. In this case, depositions are taken and witnesses are lined up. After the evidence is collected, either side or both sides may feel that their evidence is so compelling that a decision in their favor is inevitable. One or both parties may then move for summary judgment. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the judge must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party and issue a ruling based solely on the applicable law. If the judge rules in the defendant's favor, the lawsuit stops there and all parties go home. If, however, the judge rules in the plaintiff's favor, the lawsuit may continue, or, in many cases, the defendant will negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff.

Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment are very important in defining the legal landscape in cases involving bullying, harassment, and threats in the school setting. When a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff and a settlement follows, the public will often never ascertain the ultimate disposition of the case, because the court can seal the settlement record. All the public will know is which party the court ruled had the better case. However, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants pay close attention to such rulings.

Controlling or Persuasive Authority

The authority of the courts to adjudicate educational disputes derives from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which created the Supreme Court and a series of lesser courts to decide controversies involving the states and the citizens of the United States. The power of the courts to adjudicate disputes is called judicial review, a review that ordinarily proceeds in an orderly fashion from lower levels of the various court systems to higher levels, as needed.

The two court systems that handle most school-related controversies are the more or less parallel systems of the state and federal courts. As a general rule, the plaintiff chooses the forum in which to litigate a dispute, if school and administrative remedies are exhausted and judicial review is therefore appropriate. State courts are available for any individuals seeking redress of wrongs having a legally cognizable nexus to that state. To bring suit in federal court, on the other hand, a plaintiff must show that a federal question is involved. This is relatively easy to accomplish in the educational setting because the federal government provides financial assistance to state educational systems, constitutional issues are federal questions, and any dispute involving a federal law is a federal question.

When a court renders a decision, however, the force and applicability of that decision depends on the status of the court in the hierarchy of the state or federal court system. As in the geology analogy, Supreme Court decisions blanket the legal landscape like the lava from a volcanic eruption. Decisions of the Supreme Court become the law of the land, and decisions in all inferior courts, both state and federal systems, must accord with the Supreme Court's decision, unless the Court itself renders its decision null and void in a subsequent ruling.

In the federal court system, the intermediate courts just below the Supreme Court are the various federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. The United States and its territories are divided into 13 circuits based predominantly on geographical proximity. Parties dissatisfied with rulings in federal district courts may appeal to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Decisions in the Courts of Appeals are controlling authority for all lower, or federal district courts, in their respective jurisdictions. However, a decision in one circuit court is not controlling authority for other circuit court decisions. If the circuits are geographically, economically, or demographically similar, however, decisions in sister circuits may be persuasive and influence the outcome of rulings on common topics. On some topics, for example, on the topic of what constitutes a true student threat, rulings in the various circuits differ fundamentally, with several circuits adopting a test that relies on the interpretation of the hearer, and others adopting a test that focuses on what the speaker should have realized about the impact of his words. In cases where splits of legal opinions exist among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court will often agree to hear the appeal of a case or cases that will allow them to resolve the legal uncertainty. However, appeals to the Supreme Court are not automatically granted. The Court accepts only a limited number of cases for adjudication each year.

Paralleling the federal court system is an extensive system of state courts through which plaintiffs may seek relief. As in the federal system, state courts operate on a hierarchy system, with appeals from courts of localized jurisdiction to courts of more regional jurisdiction. Each state typically has one state Supreme Court that is the highest court in the state system, except for New York, where the highest state court is the Court of Appeals. Decisions of a state Supreme Court are binding on lower courts in that state, but they are not controlling authority for courts in other states. Other states, however, are bound to recognize the outcome of state court decisions, for example, divorce decrees. State Supreme Court decisions can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court if a federal question is at issue.

Interpreting Case Citations

Understanding the court and legal citations is imperative to determine if a particular case or law is binding for a school or district. The citation rules used by the legal profession are different from, and in most cases use more abbreviations than, the rules formulated by nonlegal scholars. Court decisions are reported in upper- and lower-case letters. The names of plaintiffs and defendants (or in appeals cases, appellants and appellees) appear first, and are either underlined or italicized. “Versus” is abbreviated simply as “v.,” not “vs.”

The rest of the citation provides the information needed to find the text of the decision. Court cases are usually collected in what are called reporters, which can be local, state, federal, or topical. Geographic reporters collect cases originating in different jurisdictions, whereas specialty reporters collect cases dealing with particular topics. For example, the Atlantic Reporter, abbreviated “A.,” contains cases from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and several neighboring states. West's Education Law Reporter, abbreviated “Ed. Law Rep.,” reprints court decisions having special significance for educators and school attorneys. Several reporters are exclusively dedicated to decisions from the federal courts, such as the Federal Reporter, abbreviated “F.,” or the Federal Supplement, abbreviated “F. Supp.”

The reporters publish court decisions as they are decided, so the most recent cases appear in the most recent reporters. The first number of a case citation gives the reporter volume; the number after the reporter's abbreviation is the page on which the case begins. As decision after decision was published, the volume numbers of the reporters got higher and higher. Someone eventually said, “Enough!” and started the numbering all over again. To keep things straight, new reporters were designated as “the Second” and eventually even “the Third” series of the given reporter. In keeping with the law's citation brevity, the Second series is designated “2d,” and the Third “3d.” There are even corresponding rules about how many spaces are allowed between number and reporter abbreviations.

The final part of the case citation identifies the court that decided the case and the year of the decision. For example, the court might be a state court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1997. The citation would include the following information in parentheses:

(E.D. Pa. 1997)

Or the decision may be from a state appeals court in California, dated 1999. The citation then would be:

(Cal. App. 1999)

If just “Cal.” appears, the case is from the California Supreme Court. Similarly, any other state abbreviation indicates that the decision originated in that state's Supreme Court (except for New York State, where the New York Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state. The state court of last resort in New York is the Court of Appeals).

If the decision originated in a federal Circuit Court of Appeals instead of the state system, the part of the citation in parentheses indicates the specific circuit where the case was decided. For example, a decision from the federal Circuit Court of Appeals in which California is located—the Ninth Circuit—would be designated as such:

(9th Cir. 1999)

The decisions with the most universal applicability—those from the U.S. Supreme Court—are the easiest to cite and to recognize. U.S. Supreme Court decisions appear in several reporters, among them the United States Reporter, abbreviated “U.S.,” or the Supreme Court Reporter, abbreviated “S. Ct.” An example of a Supreme Court case citation is Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Some decisions are rendered by courts but are not reported in official reporters. Such “unreported decisions” are legally binding on the parties, but they do not have precedential value. Courts are not obligated to decide subsequent cases in accord with them. However, unreported decisions are made public. Many appear online, in the press, or cited in law reviews or other legal publications. Unreported decisions may state persuasive arguments that influence subsequent deliberations.

Annotated References and Resources

Constitutional and Statutory References

• The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
• The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
• Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, containing the due process and equal protection clauses, provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
• Known as Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 states:

  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

  In other words, Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of constitutional rights or rights under federal law. To state a cognizable claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct of a person acting under color of state law caused the violation, at least in part, and that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or by laws of the United States. School districts and school boards are local government entities that can be held liable under Section 1983, but only if they establish an official policy, or tolerate a custom or practice, that leads to, causes, or results in the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. (Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 58 (1978)). The “toleration” can be inaction in the face of repeated notification of problems, as in Massey v. Akron City Board of Education, 82 F. Supp.2d 735 (N.D. Ohio, 2000). Public school district employees such as administrators and teachers, as state actors, can be personally liable for violations under Section 1983.
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 c, d, provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The court decision foreclosing private rights of action under Title VI, except in cases of intentional discrimination, is Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S. Ct. 1511 (2001).
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e - 2 (a) (1), prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, provides that “[n]o person . . . shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, prohibits discrimination in employment against any “qualified individual with a disability.” Coverage is not dependent upon an employer's receipt of federal funds.
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, provides that “no otherwise handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
• The U.S. Courts of Appeals are intermediate appellate courts in the federal court system. Appeal from a federal district court is to one of the Courts of Appeals, and subsequently to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are thirteen federal appellate circuits, twelve of which have regional jurisdiction; and one that has jurisdiction in patent, copyright, and trademark cases. Eleven of the 12 regional circuits are numbered, and the states in each numbered region are listed below. The unnumbered District of Columbia Circuit handles appeals from the federal district court in the District of Columbia. Decisions in the numbered circuit courts are binding in the states in that regional circuit:

  - First Circuit: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico

  - Second Circuit: Vermont, New York, and Connecticut

  - Third Circuit: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands

  - Fourth Circuit: Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland

  - Fifth Circuit: Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana

  - Sixth Circuit: Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan

  - Seventh Circuit: Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin

  - Eighth Circuit: Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska

  - Ninth Circuit: Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands

  - Tenth Circuit: Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Kansas

  - Eleventh Circuit: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida

Journal Articles, Texts, and Commentaries

• For a scholarly treatment of the origin and import of the Bill of Rights and the interplay between the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, see Amar, A.R. (1992). The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Yale Law Journal, 101. 1193–1284. Amar's commentary is available at www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar/html (accessed May 2004).
• For more detailed information on interpreting case citations and the applicability of court rulings to particular jurisdictions, see Chapter 1 in Conn, K. (2002). The Internet and the law: What educators need to know. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.