Legal Critique#1 - Assignment Example

Legal Critique s Citation: of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 F. Supp. 390 – District Court, W.D. Texas (1981)Participants:The participants of the legal case were the University of Texas and Walter Camenisch, a deaf graduate student of mentioned educational establishment (University of Texas v. Camenisch, 1981, P#1, C#1, L#3-5).Summary/history:Initially, in March 1978, District Court for the Western District of Texas received a complaint from the deaf graduate student at the University of Texas, Walter Camenisch, who claimed that his university violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 1981, P#3, C#1, L#3-4). The official complaint stated that, taking into account federal funds, which the University received for educational necessities, the deaf student was supposed to use the services of sign-language interpreter provided by the University. However, the University refused to satisfy the student’s requirement and, therefore, displayed discriminatory attitude to a person with physical deviation (P#3, C#1, L#11-13). The plaintiff demanded the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to provide declaratory relief and oblige the respondent to ensure the services of interpreter.

The Federal Court granted preliminary injunction, which forced the University to satisfy the plaintiff’s complaint. This decision was made based on the assumption that Walter Camenisch would prevail on merits. Simultaneously, preliminary injunction took place along with the requirement for the plaintiff to post a security bond of $3,000.00 (1981 P#3, C#1, L#31-35). However, the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals claiming for its mootness caused with the graduation of a student. The Court of Appeals confirmed the preliminary injunction.

The University received certiorari (1981, P#3, C#2, L#8-12). But the Supreme Court raised the issue regarding not the question about who should pay for the interpreter, which the Court of Appeals correctly decided to be viewed in a trial on the merits, but whether the District Court exceeded the authority and violated its discretion by granting preliminary relief (1981 P#1, C#2, L#6-7).Decision:Considering the chance that the absence of injunction would harm Walter Camenisch, the District Court granted preliminary injunction based on a judgment on the merits.

Preliminary evaluation of the merits showed prevalence of the student. In addition, the court ordered the complainant to ensure security bond for protecting the defendant. The University implemented the court’s decision and the student graduated meanwhile the Court of Appeals rejected the mootness of the case stating that the question regarding who should pay for the interpreter was left to be decided (1981 P#2, C#2, L#1-2). However, it was concluded that the issue regarding the payment should be viewed in first instance in a trial on the merits.

Until this happens, preliminary injunction should be considered as moot. The Supreme Court raised the question concerning whether the federal court violated its discretion by granting preliminary relief. In the upshot, the decision of the Court of Appeals was annulled and the case was remanded to the District Court for the further review (1981 P#5, C#2, L#1-3). Critique:It is generally accepted that preliminary injunction is granted only in order to detect positions of the parties before a trial on the merits.

Therefore, on this stage before a trial, it is inappropriate for the federal court to consider final judgment on the merits (1981 P#1, C#2, L#20-22). The legal case shows the situation when one issue of it is moot and all others are not moot, which rejects the controversy of the case in general (1981 P#3, C#2, L#30-32). This can be considered as the strength. The weakness of the case consists of the fact that taking into account the mootness on appeal of a preliminary injunction, the final judgment should be made in a trial on the merits due to the specification of the circumstances and can not be resolved on appeal (1981 P#4, C#2, L#12-15).

Implications:The impact of this case and its decision on the field of Deaf Education is the conclusion that every individual, despite their physical condition, must be provided with equal access to education. In this respect, deaf students should be assisted with additional services of interpreters fully paid by the University, which is obliged to provide equal and fair treatment to all individuals without exception.