Oea v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Legislature

• Decision Date: 08 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 103,702.,103,702.
• Citation: 158 P.3d 1058,2007 OK 30
• Parties: OKLAHOMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; Independent School District No. I-07 of Rogers County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Foyil Public Schools; Independent School District No. I-41 of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Western Heights Public Schools; and Independent School District No. I-05 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Jenks Public Schools, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. The OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE; Senator Mike Morgan, In His Official Capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate; and Representative Todd Hiett, In His Official Capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Oklahoma Legislature, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

158 P.3d 1058

2007 OK 30

OKLAHOMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; Independent School District No. I-07 of Rogers County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Foyil Public Schools; Independent School District No. I-41 of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Western Heights Public Schools; and Independent School District No. I-05 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Jenks Public Schools, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. The OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE; Senator Mike Morgan, In His Official Capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate; and Representative Todd Hiett, In His Official Capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Oklahoma Legislature, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 103,702.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 8, 2007.

On Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; The Honorable Daniel L. Owens, Presiding.

¶ 0 Plaintiffs brought suit against the State of Oklahoma and its legislative leaders asking the court to declare that the Oklahoma Legislature has failed to adequately fund common education in violation of Okla. Const. art. I, § 5 and art. XIII, § 1, and has failed to fund the State Public Common School Building Equalization Fund in violation of Okla. Const. art. X, § 32. The plaintiffs assert that by its failure to adequately fund common education, the Legislature has violated Oklahoma students' constitutional rights to a uniform, adequate education and has injured the plaintiffs because the funding is insufficient for them to provide a basic, adequate education as established by statutory standards. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the suit with prejudice finding (1) the plaintiffs lack standing, (2) the issues present non-justiciable political questions, (3) a judicial determination of the issues would violate the separation of powers provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, and (4) the legislative leaders are immune from suit. This Court retained the appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Joe E. White, Jr., White & Weddle, P.C., and Richard Bryan Wilkinson, Oklahoma Education Association, Oklahoma City, OK, for the appellants.

Neal Leader, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Martha R. Kulmacz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for the appellee the Oklahoma Legislature.

Cheryl Purvis, Oklahoma State Senate, and Lee Slater, Oklahoma City, OK, for the appellee Senator Mike Morgan, President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate.

Amy Alden and Jennifer J. Butts, Oklahoma House of Representatives, Oklahoma City, OK, for appellee Representative Todd Hiett, Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

TAYLOR, J.

I. ISSUES

¶ 1 The questions before this Court are (1) have the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that they have standing to assert violations of the rights of Oklahoma students based on the Oklahoma Constitution, (2) do the plaintiffs have a constitutional and statutory duty to provide Oklahoma's students with a basic, adequate education, and (3) do the substantive issues before for this Court present a non-justiciable, separation of powers question. We answer the first two questions in the negative and the third question in the affirmative.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 2 This appeal presents only questions of law. This Court reviews questions of law under a de novo standard¹ and without deference to the lower court.²

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3 The Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) and three school districts, Foyil,³ Western Heights,⁴ and Jenks⁵ (plaintiff school districts), brought suit against the Oklahoma Legislature; Senator Mike Morgan, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate; and Representative Todd Hiett, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The OEA stated that it was bringing the suit in its corporate capacity and on behalf of its individual members and the students they serve. The members of the OEA are employees of Oklahoma school districts. The plaintiff school districts likewise stated that they were bringing the suit on their own behalf. However, no Oklahoma students are parties to this suit.

¶ 4 The plaintiffs challenge the current level of funding for common education. In their amended petition, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants, by inadequately funding education, are (1) depriving Oklahoma school children of a constitutional right to a uniform opportunity to receive a basic, adequate education according to the standards set by the Oklahoma Legislature and (2) depriving Oklahoma school districts of the ability to fulfill their constitutional and statutory obligations to meet the contemporary educational standards established for every child.

¶ 5 In the plaintiffs' five claims for relief, they seek a declaration that the Legislature's failure to adequately fund common education violates article I, section 5;⁶ article X, section 32;⁷ article XIII, section 1;⁸ and article II, section 7⁹ of the Oklahoma Constitution. They posit that the Legislature's alleged inadequate funding has deprived educators of the opportunity to provide a basic, adequate education to Oklahoma's children, denied Oklahoma students the right to a uniform, basic education, and violated the students' due process and equal protection rights. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the unfunded cost of meeting statutory educational standards exceeds one billion dollars and the unfunded capital needs of Oklahoma school districts exceeds three billion dollars. The plaintiffs ask the court to order the Legislature to design, formulate, adopt, properly and adequately fund, and maintain a comprehensive system of educational funding which affords each child in Oklahoma an equal opportunity for a basic, adequate education and to retain jurisdiction in this matter until the Legislature has implemented such an educational funding system.

¶ 6 The defendants moved for dismissal on several grounds. The two dispositive grounds are (1) the plaintiffs lack standing and (2) the petition presents a non-justiciable political question which is closely tied to the separation-of-powers doctrine.

IV. STANDING

¶ 7 The burden is on the party invoking a court's jurisdiction to establish its standing to seek relief in the court.¹⁰ To establish standing, the plaintiff must show (1) a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the alleged misconduct, and (3) a protected interest "within a statutorily or constitutionally protected zone."¹¹

¶ 8 We decipher two injuries which the plaintiffs assert have resulted from the Legislature's alleged failure to adequately fund Oklahoma's educational system. First, students are harmed because they are deprived of a uniform, basic, adequate education, of their rights to due process, and of their rights to equal protection of the law, all mandated by the Oklahoma Constitution. Second, the OEA's members and the plaintiff school districts are harmed because they are unable to meet their constitutional and statutory duties as educators. We first address the OEA's and the plaintiff school districts' standing to challenge the alleged constitutional deprivations to Oklahoma's students.

¶ 9 The OEA claims associational standing to seek relief on behalf of Oklahoma's students and on behalf of its members based on its members' standing¹². An association has standing to seek redress for injury on behalf of its members when "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit."¹³

A. Standing to Assert Injury to Oklahoma Students

¶ 10 When ruling on a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court, and subsequently the reviewing court, "must construe the petition in favor of the complaining party."¹⁴ If the plaintiff alleges facts which are sufficient to establish standing, then the case proceeds to the next stage.¹⁵ A party's standing may be examined at any stage of the proceedings, and the party seeking relief has a greater burden at later stages in the case than in defending a pretrial motion to dismiss.¹⁶

¶ 11 The OEA asserts that it has standing as an association based on its members possessing standing to sue in their own right. For the OEA to have associational standing, its members must have a "`direct, immediate and substantial'" interest in the controversy and a "personal stake in the outcome."¹⁷ In this respect, its members' injuries must be to their own legal rights and not those of others.¹⁸ With few exceptions,¹⁹ "constitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously."²⁰

¶ 12 The plaintiffs assert injury to the rights of Oklahoma's students. The OEA has not established that any of its members are Oklahoma students. Although some of the members of the OEA may be parents of Oklahoma students, this is insufficient to establish the OEA's standing to assert injury to the students' rights. The OEA has failed to meet its burden to show that any of its members have a right of their own to assert injury to the rights of Oklahoma's students. As the OEA's members cannot vicariously assert injury to the constitutional rights of Oklahoma's students, neither can the OEA. The OEA has failed to meet the first prong of the test for associational standing as to this claim.

¶ 13 The OEA relies on the fact that in Oklahoma Education Association v. Nigh,²¹ an original action before this Court, it was allowed to assert that the Oklahoma State Land Office was violating its constitutional duty by giving preferential leases for certain lands contained in the Oklahoma School Land Trust. This Court is not bound by its exercise of jurisdiction in Nigh because the OEA's standing passed...