The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court justices argued that despite the inequalities that existed between school districts in terms of funding and ability to raise local revenue, there was no basis to strike down the funding method. They agreed with the defendant, in this case the Cincinnati Board of Education, that local control of school districts served as a rationale to defend the funding inequalities. The court stated that the local control of school districts "meant not only the freedom to devote more money to the education of one's children but also control over and participation in the decision-making process as to how those local tax dollars are to be spent." [3]
The court did not answer the questions of whether the Ohio General Assembly at the time fulfilled their constitutional requirement to provide a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, despite the trial court's ruling stating that the Assembly did not. Furthermore, the court declined to state what constitutes a "thorough and efficient" system of public education. [2] By leaving these questions unanswered, whether intentionally or not, the court allowed for the school funding model to be revisited in future court cases.
In addition, the court defended their decision by explaining that the state had taken steps to close the disparities in school funding. The state of Ohio gave extra money to school districts that levied 20 mills of property tax up to a maximum of 30 mills. [3] The court used this rationale to explain that the inequalities were not unconstitutional because the state made an effort to even out funding through that policy. Despite upholding the method of funding, the court kept the possibility of further court cases regarding education funding alive. The Court stated that the structure of funding would become unconstitutional if a school district failed to receive enough funding from all sources that it could not operate adequately. [4] This made it possible for the funding of schools in Ohio to be struck down in the case DeRolph v. State .
The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the supreme court of the U. S. state of New Hampshire and sole appellate court of the state. The Supreme Court is seated in the state capital, Concord. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices appointed by the Governor and Executive Council to serve during "good behavior" until retirement or the age of seventy. The senior member of the Court is able to specially assign lower-court judges, as well as retired justices, to fill vacancies on the Court.
Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144, 87 A.2d 862, aff'd, 91 A.2d 137, was a case decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery in 1952 and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in the same year. Gebhart was one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found unconstitutional racial segregation in United States public schools.
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment rights.
Claremont School District v Governor of New Hampshire is an important legal case in New Hampshire. In the mid-1990s, the city of Claremont, New Hampshire started a process against the State of New Hampshire, challenging the constitutionality of the New Hampshire allocation of school funding.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the vouchers could be used for private religious schools.
The Robin Hood plan was a media nickname given to legislation enacted by the U.S. state of Texas in 1993 to provide court-mandated equitable school financing for all school districts in the state, in response to the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby.
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 12, 1995 the Court, in a 5–4 decision, overturned a district court ruling that required the state of Missouri to correct intentional racial discrimination in Kansas City schools by funding salary increases and remedial education programs.
Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with the state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center. The ruling asserted that public primary and secondary education in poor communities throughout the state was unconstitutionally substandard. The Abbott II ruling in 1990 had the most far-reaching effects, ordering the state to fund the (then) 28 Abbott districts at the average level of the state's wealthiest districts. The Abbott District system was replaced in 2007 by the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States has been criticized on several grounds. Its use in government funded schools has been the most controversial, as critics contend that a government-sanctioned endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguments against the pledge include that the pledge itself is incompatible with democracy and freedom, that it is a form of nationalistic indoctrination, that pledges of allegiance are features of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, and that the pledge was written to sell flags.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) was a not-for-profit advocacy organization that sought to protect and promote the constitutional right to a sound basic education for all public school students in the State of New York. Under the leadership of Michael A. Rebell, the organization filed and won the landmark "CFE v. State of New York" lawsuit, which successfully argued that the state's school finance system under-funded New York City public schools and denied its students their constitutional right.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that:
The Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Horton v. Meskill on April 19, 1977. It held that the right to education in Connecticut is so basic and fundamental that any intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized. The Court said that public school students are entitled to equal enjoyment of the right to education, and a system of school financing that relied on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth and that lacked significant equalizing state support was unconstitutional. It could not pass the test of strict judicial scrutiny. The Court also held that the creation of a constitutional system for education financing is a job for the legislature and not the courts.
DeRolph v. State is a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in a 4–3 decision that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools," as required by the Ohio Constitution, and directed the state to find a remedy. The court would look at the case several times over the next 12 years before it relinquished jurisdiction, but the underlying problems with the school funding system remain to this day.
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.
Miller v. Korns (1923) is a significant legal case in the U.S. state of Ohio. It was one of the first Ohio Supreme Court cases to challenge the Ohio State General Assembly's system of school financing.
The constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States has been challenged on a number of grounds, generating a substantial amount of case law. The Supreme Court of the United States has twice examined sex offender registration laws and upheld them both times. Those challenging the sex offender registration and related restriction statutes have claimed violations of the ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection and search and seizure provisions of the United States Constitution. A study published in fall 2015 found that statistics cited in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are often cited in decisions upholding the constitutionality of sex offender policies are unfounded. Several challenges to some parts of state level sex offender laws have been honored after hearing at the state level.
National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System was a court case that was first decided in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on February 22, 2019, declaring that requiring men but disallowing women to register for the draft for military service in the United States was unconstitutional. The ruling did not specify which actions the government needed to take to resolve the conflict with the constitution. That ruling was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
