ILNews

Courts can review public school financing

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Hoosier courts have the authority to review the state's school financing formula to determine whether Indiana is meeting a constitutional requirement to provide a quality public education for all students, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled May 2.

A 2-1 ruling from the COA revives the public education financing case of Joseph Bonner, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., No. 49A02-0702-CV-188, which presents an issue of first impression. Nine public school students and their families from eight different school systems throughout the state filed the class-action suit in 2006, claiming the school funding formula violates the Indiana Constitution's Education Clause. They contended it didn't provide enough money for all children to have a fair chance to learn. Defendants named are Gov. Mitch Daniels, the state's Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen K. Reed, and the Indiana Board of Education.

Plaintiffs brought their case under the Indiana Declaratory Judgment Act, claiming the legislature-approved school funding formula that's implemented by the education board violates the guarantee set out in the state constitution.

"Although most other states have already determined the issues presented for our review, never before has an Indiana court been requested to answer Bonner's questions," Judge Patricia Riley wrote, noting that only five haven't considered the issues. "The vast majority of courts in our sister states have concluded that this cause is justiciable and that state constitutions impose enforceable duties on the legislative and executive branch to provide a quality education to public school students."

In January 2007, former Marion Superior Judge Cale Bradford - who's now an appellate judge - granted a motion from the state to dismiss the suit, ruling that school funding is a political question that's not appropriate for the courts. His five-page trial court ruling said that such decisions did not lend themselves to a likely judicial remedy and that he couldn't order a remedy out of respect for separation of powers.

Appellate Judge Ezra Friedlander agreed with the trial court, writing in his dissent, "While we may find [the legislature's appropriations decision] to be intolerable, we would find it even more intolerable for the judicial branch of government to invade the power of the legislative branch. In my view, this is exactly what this court is asked to review in this case - an appropriations decision by the legislature."

But appellate Judges Riley and John Sharpnack disagreed, issuing a 38-page majority opinion that delved into the constitution's history and an array of similar cases from across the country. They determined that the defendants were appropriately named in this case and the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The opinion includes a comprehensive analysis on the judicial review applicability.

The judges determined that Bonner has made a cognizable claim that can be considered by the court, and that if plaintiffs can submit proof of the claim, then a court can grant a declaration that the General Assembly hasn't discharged its constitutional duty.

In its ruling, the court relied on caselaw dating back more than a century to show that Hoosier courts have long been in line with a philosophy from the U.S. Supreme Court to reject notions that the judiciary shouldn't take action on issues because elected branches of government might not comply. The court noted that it's not being asked to establish a new system of education funding but rather determine whether the legislature is meeting its constitutional obligation.

"Clearly, as shown, the Education Clause is subject to judicial enforcement," Judge Riley wrote.

"We hasten to add that it is not our intention to intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches of government," she wrote. "We were not appointed to establish educational policy, nor to determine the proper way to finance its implementation. We leave such matters to the two co-equal branches of government: it is for the Legislature and the Governor to fulfill their responsibility with respect to defining the specifics of, and the appropriate means to provide a public education, which should instill in Indiana's children the knowledge and learning essential for today's workplace."

The decision remands the case to the trial court to determine whether Indiana's current public school system, through its funding, provides Hoosier students with an adequate education "as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT