Helms v. Picard

Full title: MARY L. HELMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF AMY T. HELMS; AMY T…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 13, 1999

165 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

No. 97-30231.

January 13, 1999.

Lee Boothby, Boothby Yingst, Washington, DC, for Mary and Amy Helms and Marie Schneider.

Patricia Ann Dean, Andrew Tanner Karron, Arnold Porter, Washington, DC, William Thomas D'Zurilla, Gordon, Arata, McCollam Duplantis, New Orleans, LA, for Guy and Jan Mitchell, Claire Friedrichs, Eddie and Collen Greer and Dennis and Darlene Thornton.

Howard S. Scher, Drake Stephen Cutini, Matthew Miles Collette, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Richard Riley and U.S. Dept. of Educ.

Jack A Grant, Andree Hunter Greenleaf, Grant Barrow, Gretna, LA, for Lagasse, Rolling, Moran, Wolfe, Bordelon, Guidry, Floyd, Thomas, Katsanis, Marino and Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd. System.

David Glen Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Division of Litigation, Baton Rouge, LA, for Picard, Duncan and Louisiana State Bd. of Elementary and secondary Educ.

Marshall Beil, Catherine A. Rogers, Ross Hardies, New York City, for National Committee for Public Educ. and Religious Liberty, Amicus Curiae.

Marjorie Ruth Esman, New Orleans, LA, Kenneth M. Dreifach, Morrision Foerster, New York City, for The American Civil Liberties Union and Anti-Defamation League Amicus Curiae.

Thomas A. Rayer, Sr., Denechaud Denechaud, New Orleans, LA, for Special Educ. Services Corp.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before DUH, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.¹

1 Judges Wiener and Dennis did not participate in the consideration of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

PER CURIAM:

The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and the court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the court and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor, (Fed.R.App.P and 5th Cir. R. 35) the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.

For clarity, we amend that part of the last sentence of the panel opinion following the number (2) to read as follows:

". . .(2) we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants and RENDER judgment in favor of Plaintiffs declaring that the Federal instructional materials program, 20 U.S.C. §§ 7301-7373, and its Louisiana counterpart, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 17:351-52, are unconstitutional as applied in Jefferson Parish, except as applied for the acquisition of textbooks which use is not challenged by this litigation; and (3). . . ."