Chemerinsky Case Summary

A fundamental right by the court allows for strict scrutiny where legislation constructs classifications surrounding the right. It is a policy decision implemented by the court to limit the amount and type of legislation that is subject to strict scrutiny. The significance of the case is based on the different levels of equal protection. Rosenfeld would view this case as legitimate because it follows separate factors; judges act as democratic participants: where the debate is open, and different sides are represented in majority and minority. Judges act as protectors of rights against government action. Chemerinsky would think this case is not as legitimate because it protects the rights of minorities who can’t rely on the political process for protection. …show more content…
The court held that education is not a fundamental right, and would refuse to examine the Texas public education finance system with strict scrutiny because education is not stated in the constitution. The plaintiffs would argue that this case was not decided fairly because inequality finance in education is a problem that can affect minorities in poor districts. The Supreme Court has failed to follow through with their commitment of “Equal Justice Under Law.” This decision can be seen as unfair because there are school districts that receive 3 times more money than other school districts. However, income is not a classification, and it is difficult to prove that people are discriminating based on the amount of money people make. It just happens to be that people with less income end up in poorer districts, people with higher income normally live in the nicer areas. Perhaps this is done purposely, but in today’s society, there are several opportunities to help you get to where you want to