LITIGATION
CCJEF v. RELL
Connecticut Supreme Court
Faces Historic Question:
Do Children Have the Right to an
Adequate Education?
The most important, far-reaching education case in this state in 30 years awaits a late summer decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The outcome of the CCJEF v. Rell appeal is expected to determine whether Connecticut school children have the right to an adequate education. The state argues that schoolchildren do not, that even a poor quality education meets constitutional muster and is an inappropriate concern for the courts.
read full overview here>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief to Supreme Court of Connecticut, filed March 11, 2008:
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court's decision was premature, since fully defining the right to education will require the consideration of facts that can only be fully explored at trial. Plaintiffs further contend that while the State makes much of the so-called difference between "suitable" and "minimally adequate" in its Reply Brief, Plaintiffs are merely asking the Court to recognize the existence of a minimum constitutional standard necessary to serve the purposes of education. Plaintiffs argue that such a standard is essential to maintain consistency with Connecticut precedent, the history of article eighth, § 1, and the Court's own principles of constitutional interpretation. Finally, Plaintiffs note that adjudicating this case does not require the judiciary to set educational policy or to engraft particular standards into the Constitution, and Plaintiffs point to sister state cases to demonstrate that judicial remedies can be successfully implemented in education adequacy cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' Reply Brief to Supreme Court of Connecticut, filed February 21, 2008:
Relying heavily on education cases from other states, the State argues that Plaintiffs' claims raise non-justiciable political questions that cannot be adjudicated without severely encroaching on the power of the Legislature. The State also denies that there exists any support for the right to a "suitable" education either in the text of the Connecticut Constitution, the history of the Education Clause, federal precedents, the precedents of this state and others, or the public policy of the state. Finally, the State argues that Plaintiffs' procedural arguments are without merit, as a full trial is not necessary to evaluate the legal merits of constitutional claims..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by One Connecticut:
One Connecticut, a statewide coalition of human service, labor,
interfaith and advocacy organizations that began collaborating in 2000
to fight poverty and build economic security, argues that providing
suitable educational opportunities is necessary to minimizing
disparities in civic engagement, improving governmental representation,
and decreasing students’ future involvement with the welfare and
criminal justice systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by the Connecticut Conference of
Municipalities and Other Organizations:
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) and several
organizations that provide services to families and children across the
state of Connecticut argue that the state’s current education system
perpetuates inadequate and unequal state aid for public schools, and
that the broken ECS formula is not based on a rational, evidence-based
assessment of the actual cost of education. Amici Curiae urge the Court
to intervene to ensure the legislature’s adoption of a funding method
that results in equitable and adequate education funding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by State Historian Emeritus Collier
and Delegate Bernstein:
In their brief of Amici Curiae, noted historian Christopher Collier and
Constitutional Convention Delegate Simon Bernstein provide historical
context to the fight for quality education in Connecticut. They argue
that over the past three hundred years, Connecticut has continued to
adapt to improve its schools, and Connecticut’s leaders have continued
to assert that education is indispensable to the preparation of its
citizens. Most importantly, Dr. Collier and Judge Bernstein demonstrate
that in the 1965 Constitutional Convention, the State’s longstanding
voluntary commitment to education was made into a binding constitutional
duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by NAACP and the Center for
Children’s Advocacy:
In their brief of Amici Curiae, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nation’s oldest and largest
civil rights organization, and the Center for Children’s Advocacy, a
non-profit organization which promotes the legal rights of poor
children, argue that the trial court’s decision to strike Plaintiffs’
claims on the basis of an incomplete factual record was completely
improper. Had a fully developed evidentiary record been available to the
court, it would have revealed the disproportionate impact that
inequitable and unsuitable educational opportunities have on poor and
minority students in Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by New York and New Jersey
Education Advocacy Groups:
A consortium of education advocacy groups in New York and New Jersey
argue that the trial court’s justiciability concerns were misplaced.
Amici Curiae point to the widespread ability of sister states to enforce
children’s constitutional rights to an adequate education without
violating the prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches of
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs by the Workforce Alliance and other
Business and Employment Groups:
The Workforce Alliance, WorkPlace, Inc., the Bridgeport Regional
Business Council, and the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund,
organizations which play an important role in local employment
recruitment and development, argue that the Connecticut public education
system is failing to prepare its students to become successful and
productive members of the workforce and to compete in institutions of
higher learning. Because Connecticut owes its continued prosperity and
high per capita income to its high-tech, engineering, financial, and
information-based businesses, which experts agree require a
highly-skilled workforce consisting of individuals having obtained at
least a bachelor’s degree, Amici Curiae argue that changes in
Connecticut’s economy necessitate the recognition of a quality standard
of education for schoolchildren in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ Merits Brief to Supreme Court of
Connecticut, filed December 21, 2007:
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred both procedurally and
substantively and that its decision should be reversed. Procedurally,
the trial court erred by deciding a critical constitutional question
prematurely, effectively defining the contours of the state Constitution
prior to the submission of any evidence on Connecticut history, the
intent of the drafters of the Education Clause, or the economic and
sociological considerations that support a guaranteed baseline of
educational opportunity. Substantively, the trial court erred by not
carefully considering the volumes of evidence that support Plaintiffs’
claims. Specifically, the text of the Connecticut Constitution, the
history of the Education Clause, the precedents of this state and
others, and economic factors all strongly support Plaintiffs’ reading of
the constitutional right to education. Plaintiffs further argue that if
this right is construed to guarantee equality of opportunity alone, it
would be possible for the State to meet its constitutional obligations
merely by providing all students with an equally deficient education.
Finally, Plaintiffs fully reject the trial court’s concerns over the
manageability of their claims, arguing that Connecticut precedent
strongly suggests that education cases are both judicially manageable
and capable of adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trial Court’s Decision on Defendants’ Motion to Strike, Filed September
17, 2007:
The trial court grants the State’s Motion to Strike, effectively
eliminating three of the four causes of action raised in Plaintiffs’
complaint. The trial court rejects the State’s argument that Plaintiffs’
claims for “suitable educational opportunities” are claims for suitable
educational outcomes, and also rejects the State’s argument that
Plaintiffs’ claims are non-justiciable. However, the court concludes
that it is impossible to find “in the text of the constitution, the
decisions of our Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court or the courts of
our sister states, the history and context of our constitutional
guarantee of ‘free public elementary and secondary schools’ or
appropriate economic, cultural or public policy considerations any basis
for concluding that there exists a constitutional right to ‘suitable’
educational opportunities.” Finally, the court discusses at length its
concerns regarding the manageability of Plaintiffs’ claims, despite its
formal conclusion that these claims are justiciable,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed April 24, 2007:
Plaintiffs file a new Complaint, adding CCJEF as a plaintiff. Since the
trial court’s granting of the State’s Motion to Dismiss, CCJEF has added
to its membership parents of Connecticut schoolchildren, thereby curing
the representational problem that had caused CCJEF to be removed from
the suit. On the grounds that allowing CCJEF back into the lawsuit would
not prejudice the State, the trial court allows CCJEF to return as a
plaintiff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed
October 19, 2006:
The State’s reply (1) again characterizes Plaintiffs’ claims for
“suitable educational opportunities” as claims for suitable, and equal,
educational outcomes, and (2) argues that the trial court cannot
adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims without severely encroaching on the power
of the Legislature, as the field of education is controlled by this
branch of government and lies outside of judicial expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed October 13, 2006:
Plaintiffs argue that the State’s reading of the Connecticut
Constitution fundamentally misconstrues Connecticut’s history and prior
Supreme Court precedent, and that properly understood, the Constitution
guarantees not just equality of educational opportunity, but some
substantive, meaningful baseline of educational opportunity as well.
Plaintiffs further argue that striking their claims at this stage,
before any evidence has been collected or submitted, is premature and
incongruent with Connecticut trial practice. Plaintiffs reject the
State’s characterization of their claims as claims for equal outcomes,
pointing to the complaint’s focus on suitable educational opportunities.
Finally, Plaintiffs demonstrate how strongly the Connecticut Supreme
Court has spoken on the justiciability of education cases, and
Plaintiffs argue that a full review of out-of-state cases strongly
supports the justiciability of their claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trial Court’s Decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filed August 17,
2006:
The trial court denies the State’s motion to dismiss the Governor,
Treasurer, and Comptroller as defendants, on the grounds that these
parties are sufficiently involved in the administration, coordination,
and supervision of the activities of the department of education to
qualify as proper defendants in this case. However, the trial court
grants the State’s motion to dismiss CCJEF as a plaintiff, on the
grounds that CCJEF does not have individual members that are parents of
Connecticut schoolchildren. [Subsequent to the trial court’s granting of
the State’s Motion to Dismiss, CCJEF added to its membership parents of
Connecticut schoolchildren, thereby curing the representational problem
that had caused the coalition to be removed from the suit. On the
grounds that allowing CCJEF back into the lawsuit would not prejudice
the State, therefore, the trial court did allow CCJEF to return as a
plaintiff. See Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, below.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants’ Motion to Strike, filed September 13, 2006:
After characterizing Plaintiffs’ claims for “suitable educational
opportunities” as claims for suitable, and equal, educational outcomes,
the State points to education cases from other states to argue that
Plaintiffs’ claims are non-justiciable, i.e. that these claims cannot be
managed by the courts and are better left to the legislature. Finally,
the State contends that the Connecticut Constitution guarantees only the
right to “substantially equal” educational opportunities, and that
Plaintiffs’ three claims involving the right to “suitable educational
opportunities” should therefore be stricken by the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed
May 4, 2006:
The State disputes Plaintiffs’ suggestion that CCJEF qualifies as a
representative association. The State also argues that insofar as the
Governor, Treasurer, and Comptroller have no meaningful role in the
enforcement or administration of the state statutes at issue in this
litigation, these three officials should be dismissed as improper
parties to the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed April 10,
2006:
Plaintiffs argue that CCJEF should remain as a plaintiff because it is a
membership association that includes individuals acting in their
capacity as parents, who have the right to sue for the harms suffered by
their children. Plaintiffs also argue that the Governor, Treasurer, and
Comptroller should remain as defendants, both because Connecticut
precedent firmly establishes them as such, and because each of these
parties plays an important role in the administration of – and bears
constitutional responsibility for – Connecticut’s education funding
system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed March 3, 2006:
The State argues that the court should (1) remove CCJEF as a Plaintiff
because CCJEF lacks standing to sue, and (2) dismiss any claims against
the Governor, the State Comptroller, and the State Treasurer, on the
grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over these individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, filed January 20, 2006:
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Connecticut’s entire
education system, alleging that the State is failing to prepare its
schoolchildren to pursue higher education, secure meaningful employment,
and participate in the political lives of their communities. The
complaint cites deficiencies and disparities in educational resources as
the cause of this constitutional violation and Connecticut’s persistent
failures in educational outcomes as evidence that the State is failing
to meet its constitutional obligations. Plaintiffs ask the court, among
other things, to (1) declare the state’s system of funding public
education unconstitutional, (2) bar the state from continuing to use it,
and (3) if necessary due to inaction by the General Assembly, appoint a
special master to evaluate and make recommendations to the court
concerning possible reforms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
