Symposium: The deference due state constitutional protections for public education
Alice O’Brien is General Counsel at the National Education Association.
The Supreme Court in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue faces the question of whether, and if so to what degree, the federal free exercise clause restricts how states provide quality K-12 education systems. The petitioners seek a sweeping ruling that would prevent states from enforcing a myriad of state constitutional provisions safeguarding their free, nonsectarian public schools. This result, they assert, naturally follows from the court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer that a state cannot preclude religious organizations from receiving generally available playground-resurfacing grants. The respondents will argue that Trinity Lutheran, for a variety of reasons, does not prohibit states from choosing to fund only nonsectarian public schools. This post focuses on just one of the reasons: the deference due state constitutional public education provisions.
The federal constitution contains no specific education provisions, but every state constitution includes at least one provision requiring the state to establish and support some type of public education system — and most contain several provisions concerning the establishment, administration and funding of public schools. These state constitutional education provisions reflect different, deeply considered and carefully drawn commitments about how to provide educational services. At the same time, these provisions recognize that state education systems must be adequately resourced, subject to uniform standards and open to all students.
For example, almost all state constitutions include education clauses mandating that the public-school systems meet a certain qualitative standard, whether it be “high quality” (Ill.), “thorough and efficient” (Md., N.J., Ohio, W.Va., Wyo.), “suitable” (Alaska, Kan.) or “general and uniform” (Ariz., Minn., N.C., Ore., S.D., Wash.). Many state constitutions also specify how or in what priority schools shall be funded, providing, for example, that public-school funding is a paramount fiscal obligation of the state (Nev.), or may be used exclusively for public primary and secondary education (Fla.) or that certain funds may be used only for the public schools (e.g., Calif., Colo., Conn., Del., Fla., Idaho, Md., Mo., Mont., Neb., N.J., N.D., Ore., R.I.). And most state constitutions, including Montana’s, prohibit funding sectarian schools.
Although a number of these provisions precede the federal constitution’s ratification, state constitutions are typically subject to more frequent review and amendment than the federal CONTINUE READING: Symposium: The deference due state constitutional protections for public education - SCOTUSblog
