109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221, 1910.

 William A. Galston, “Two Concepts of Liberalism,” Ethics 105, no. 3 (April 1, 1995): 533f, discussing the Amish. The exclusively Satmar community of Kiryas Joel in upstate New York came to the attention of the u.s. Supreme Court after the New York legislature created a public school district within its boundaries, which was used only for special education, attended only by Satmar children, and overseen by an almost-entirely Satmar school board. Although the Court ruled that the school district arrangements were unconstitutional, commentators have noted that no one even challenged the constitutionality of the state-recognized municipality itself, in which the children not receiving special education at the “public school” all attended Satmar private schools in sex-segregated classrooms with separate curricula, receiving a strict religious education, and a highly insular upbringing with little access to modern technology or exposure to the outside world. Ironically, the case arose from the Satmar’s attempt to provide culturally appropriate special education for their children with learning and other disabilities, itself a matter of fair equality of opportunity. Nomi M. Stolzenberg, “Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet: a Religious Group’s Quest for its Own Public School” in Griffin ed., Law and religion: cases in context. Aspen Publishers, 2010.

 William A. Galston, “Two Concepts of Liberalism,” Ethics 105, no. 3 (April 1, 1995): 533f, discussing the Amish. The exclusively Satmar community of Kiryas Joel in upstate New York came to the attention of the u.s. Supreme Court after the New York legislature created a public school district within its boundaries, which was used only for special education, attended only by Satmar children, and overseen by an almost-entirely Satmar school board. Although the Court ruled that the school district arrangements were unconstitutional, commentators have noted that no one even challenged the constitutionality of the state-recognized municipality itself, in which the children not receiving special education at the “public school” all attended Satmar private schools in sex-segregated classrooms with separate curricula, receiving a strict religious education, and a highly insular upbringing with little access to modern technology or exposure to the outside world. Ironically, the case arose from the Satmar’s attempt to provide culturally appropriate special education for their children with learning and other disabilities, itself a matter of fair equality of opportunity. Nomi M. Stolzenberg, “Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet: a Religious Group’s Quest for its Own Public School” in Griffin ed., Law and religion: cases in context. Aspen Publishers, 2010.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Alexander Rosenberg, “The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations,” Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no. 01 (September 1987): 1–31; Steven R. Smith, “The Social Construction of Talent: A Defence of Justice as Reciprocity,” Journal of Political Philosophy 9, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 19–37.

 Alexander Rosenberg, “The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations,” Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no. 01 (September 1987): 1–31; Steven R. Smith, “The Social Construction of Talent: A Defence of Justice as Reciprocity,” Journal of Political Philosophy 9, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 19–37.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Americans with Disabilities Act (2008) Subtitle I, Sec. 12111 (8).

 Christopher Boorse, “A Rebuttal on Health,” in What Is Disease?, ed. James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder (Humana Press, 1997), 7–8.

 Christopher Boorse, “A Rebuttal on Health,” in What Is Disease?, ed. James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder (Humana Press, 1997), 7–8.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation