Brigham v. State

• Citation: 2005 VT 105,889 A.2d 715
• Decision Date: 12 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-295.,04-295.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
• Parties: John Mark BRIGHAM, et al. v. STATE of Vermont, David Larsen, Acting Commissioner of Education and the Vermont Board of Education.

889 A.2d 715

2005 VT 105

John Mark BRIGHAM, et al. v. STATE of Vermont, David Larsen, Acting Commissioner of Education and the Vermont Board of Education.

No. 04-295.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

September 12, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Present: DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND, JJ., AND EATON, District Judge, Specially Assigned, and GIBSON, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

ENTRY ORDER

¶ 1. Plaintiffs, a group of public-school students and a group of taxpayers, appeal a superior court decision dismissing their complaint pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff students contend that Act 60 fails to protect their right to an equal educational opportunity under the Vermont Constitution. Plaintiff taxpayers assert that Act 60's method of taxation to fund education violates their rights under the Vermont Constitution because it imposes a disproportionate burden upon the taxpayers in their towns compared to similarly situated taxpayers in other towns. The superior court dismissed both claims on grounds of judicial self-restraint. We reverse the superior court's decision, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2. Plaintiff students are four children who attend Whitingham School, Wilmington Middle High School, and Chester-Andover Elementary School. They argue that the State has failed to provide them with a substantially equal educational opportunity in violation of Chapter I, Article 7¹ and Chapter II, § 68² of the Vermont Constitution, and seek an injunction and declaration that Act 60 is unconstitutional. They argue that the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1997 (Act 60) does not remedy the inequality of educational opportunity that we identified in Brigham v. State. 166 Vt. 246, 268, 692 A.2d 384, 397 (1997) (Brigham I). Because of nondiscretionary expenditures on special education, transportation, and the school facilities themselves, plaintiffs allege that the school districts have less money available to fund instruction and curriculum. Plaintiffs contend that the curriculum offered at Whitingham School is inadequate because it is so limited. They also assert that Wilmington Middle High School's facilities are in substandard condition and insufficient funds are available under the current education-funding scheme for replacement. The students argue that these deficiencies demonstrate the State's failure to provide them with a substantially equal educational opportunity compared to the educational opportunities of students in other public school districts, which offer more curriculum choices and have modern facilities.

¶ 3. Plaintiff taxpayers are ten property owners who reside in Whitingham, Wilmington, and Andover, and pay local and state education taxes to their respective towns. The taxpayers allege that they pay disproportionately high state and local education taxes compared to similarly situated taxpayers of other Vermont towns. They also allege that because the State is inadequately funding education under Act 60, they are forced to pay higher education taxes than other taxpayers who own property of the same value and have identical adjusted gross incomes. They assert that this disparate treatment violates their rights under Chapter I, Article 9 of the Vermont Constitution.³ They seek an injunction and declaration that Act 60 is unconstitutional.

¶ 4. The State moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join indispensable parties.⁴ The State argued that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs lacked standing and because plaintiffs' claims were moot. The State contended that plaintiffs' case was mooted by Act 68, which was passed after plaintiffs filed their complaint, because Act 68 established new methods of funding education that ameliorated the deficiencies that plaintiffs alleged were present in Act 60. The State also argued that the consolidation of the Whitingham and Wilmington school districts, approved in 2003, moots plaintiffs' claims because it will improve the taxpayers' allegedly high tax burden and the students' allegedly poor curriculum choices.

¶ 5. After the State filed its motion to dismiss, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a). They sought amendment to update the statutory sections in their complaint that referred to Act 60, so that their complaint would also refer to the pertinent statutory sections of Act 68. Plaintiffs did not seek to alter their legal argument on the constitutionality of the education-funding system; they explained that Act 68 did not remedy the defects of Act 60 identified in their original complaint. Rather, they moved to amend the references to Act 60 contained in their complaint.

¶ 6. The superior court ruled concurrently on the State's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion to amend. The court granted the motion to dismiss and thus denied plaintiffs' motion to amend as moot. Without basing its decision on one identifiable legal theory, the court relied on a general notion of judicial restraint to reach the conclusion that the court should not hear the case. The court interpreted our decision in Brigham I as requiring the courts to let the Legislature remedy Vermont's education-funding system's deficiencies without judicial interference. Explaining that the issue is not nonjusticiable per se, the court stated:

As Brigham exemplifies, the constitutionality of school funding is not non-justiciable in an absolute sense. But the modes of judicial self-restraint have more prudential texture than that of the classic political question doctrine alone. Mootness and ripeness issues aside, the continuation of this case would not only be disrespectful of the political process underway, it could harm the political process by delaying it or distracting attention and resources more productively focused on it, or derailing it with unnecessary mandates or, worse, the unnecessary perception of mandates. The Legislature has not responded to Brigham by refusing to act, or by acting half-heartedly; the Legislature plainly heard Brigham's beacon and is now finding its way. Rather than enforcing Brigham, this litigation runs counter to it. (citation omitted).

¶ 7. Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the superior court erred in granting the State's motion to dismiss. They argue that it is the role of the judiciary to determine whether the state-education-funding system violates their constitutional rights.

¶ 8. The issue in this case is whether the superior court erred in granting the State's motion to dismiss on grounds of judicial restraint. Our decision in Brigham I recognizes that the court has a duty to hear plaintiffs' claims on the alleged constitutional deficiencies of the education-funding system. Therefore, because plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to satisfy the liberal Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the plaintiffs' claims must be allowed to go forward. We emphasize that although plaintiffs may not ultimately prove the alleged violations once a full record is developed, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not the proper procedure for testing the factual support for plaintiffs' claims. We reverse and remand for further proceedings, including a ruling on plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.

¶ 9. Rather than conducting an analysis on whether plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6), the superior court improperly relied on the notion of judicial restraint in dismissing the complaint. The doctrine of judicial self-restraint derives from Article III of the United States Constitution, which states that federal courts have jurisdiction only over actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 76-77, 726 A.2d 477, 480 (1998). Vermont has adopted the case-or-controversy requirement. Id. at 77, 726 A.2d at 480. The case-or-controversy requirement of Article III incorporates the doctrines of standing, mootness, ripeness, and political question, all of which help define and limit the role of the courts to ensure proper balance among the three branches of government. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 340, 693 A.2d 1045, 1047 (1997). In Hinesburg Sand, we noted that "[o]ne of the `passive virtues' of the standing doctrine [and case-or-controversy requirement] is to promote judicial restraint by limiting the occasions for judicial intervention into the political process." Id. at 340-41, 693 A.2d at 1047-48 (citing A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 111-98 (2d ed. Yale Univ. Press 1986) (1962)). Thus, for a court to maintain its proper role among the three branches of government, it must exercise judicial restraint by not asserting jurisdiction over claims that are moot or not yet ripe, or that pose a political question. See id. Additionally, if a plaintiff does not have standing, a court must exercise judicial restraint and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. at 341, 693 A.2d at 1048. Prudential judicial restraint in and of itself, however, does not excuse the court from its duty to uphold the constitution.

¶ 10. Adjudicating cases involving alleged violations of plaintiffs' constitutional rights resulting from a legislative enactment does not undermine the legislative process, nor is it disrespectful of the other branches of government. Rather, the court abdicated its duty to uphold the Vermont Constitution by refusing to entertain plaintiffs' claims. See Vt. Const. ch. II, § 5 ("The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary departments, shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the others."). Act 60 is the Legislature's remedy for the constitutional defects we found in Brigham I. 166 Vt. at 268, 692 A.2d at 397....