Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State

• Decision Date: 07 May 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2013–CA–0120,2013–CA–0350.,2013–CA–0232,s. 2013–CA–0120
• Citation: 118 So.3d 1033
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers, Jefferson Federation of Teachers, Jillian E. Alexander & Billie J. Smith v. STATE of Louisiana & the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Louisiana Association of Educators, et al. v. State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education & the State of Louisiana through the Department of Education. Louisiana School Boards Association, et al. v. State of Louisiana, Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education & Louisiana Department of Education.

118 So.3d 1033

LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers, Jefferson Federation of Teachers, Jillian E. Alexander & Billie J. Smith

v.STATE of Louisiana & the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Louisiana Association of Educators, et al.

v.State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education & the State of Louisiana through the Department of Education.

Louisiana School Boards Association, et al.

v.State of Louisiana, Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education & Louisiana Department of Education.

Nos. 2013–CA–0120, 2013–CA–0232, 2013–CA–0350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 7, 2013.

Held Unconstitutional

LSA–R.S. 17:4002.1, 17:4002.6, 17:4017.

Louisiana Department of Justice, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Faircloth Law Group, LLC, Jimmy Roy Faircloth, Jr., Barbara Bell Melton, Alexandria, LA, for Appellant (No. 2013–CA–0120).

Arif Panju, Pro Hac Vice, William R. Maurer, Pro Hac Vice, William H. Mellor, Pro Hac Vice, Richard D. Komer, Pro Hac Vice, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Arthur Gregory Grimsal, Frank P. Simoneaux, Elizabeth A. Spurgeon, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellant (No. 2013–CA–0232).

Blackwell & Associates, Brian Francis Blackwell, Baton Rouge, LA, Funderburk & Herpin, James Isaac Funderburk, Houma, LA, Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC, Louis L. Robein, Metairie, LA, Rittenberg, Samuel & Phillips, LLC, Charles Mayer Samuel, III, New Orleans, LA, Hammonds & Sills, Robert Lloyd Hammonds, Baton Rouge, LA, The Law Offices of Patrick Amedee, Patrick Michael Amedee, Metairie, LA, for Appellee (Nos. 2013–CA–0120, 2013–CA–0232).

Blackwell & Associates, Brian Francis Blackwell, Baton Rouge, LA, Funderburk & Herpin, James Isaac Funderburk, Houma, LA, Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC, Louis L. Robein, Metairie, LA, Rittenberg, Samuel & Phillips, LLC, Charles Mayer Samuel, III, New Orleans, LA, Hammonds & Sills, Robert Lloyd Hammonds, Baton Rouge, LA, The Law Offices of Patrick Amedee, Patrick Michael Amedee, Metairie, LA, for Appellant (No. 2013–CA–0350).

Louisiana Department of Justice, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Faircloth Law Group, LLC, Jimmy Roy Faircloth, Jr., Barbara Bell Melton, Alexandria, LA, Arif Panju, Pro Hac Vice, William R. Maurer, Pro Hac Vice, William H. Mellor, Pro Hac Vice, Richard D. Komer, Pro Hac Vice, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Arthur Gregory Grimsal, Frank P. Simoneaux, Elizabeth A. Spurgeon, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellee (No. 2013–CA–0350).

WEIMER, Justice.

[2013-0120 (La. 2]At the outset, we note this court's limited role in this matter, which concerns educational funding and other legislative restrictions found in the Louisiana Constitution. As appropriately acknowledged by counsel at oral argument, we will not per se address the efficacy of the school voucher or similar educational programs, which are purportedly funded by two legislative instruments from the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature that have been challenged in this case. Rather, our limited judicial inquiry is directed to constitutional issues. While sometimes technical and other times plain in their application, these constitutional provisions are never mere technicalities, but are part of the basic, fundamental provisions in our system of laws. This court is constitutionally obligated to address these issues, for it is the role of the judiciary to determine the meaning and effect of the constitution.

The determination of how to best provide for the education of children is not the role of this court in this matter. We defer that determination to those more learned in the fields of education and public policy. The court's role is to evaluate the law set forth in the constitution to determine whether the matters addressed by the legislature comply with the relevant constitutional provisions and “not to legislate social policy on the basis of our own personal inclinations.” State v. Smith, 99–0606, 99–2094, 99–2015, 99–2019, p. 11 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 510,quoting Evans v. Abney, 396 U.S. 435, 447, 90 S.Ct. 628, 24 L.Ed.2d 634 (1970). From a judicial perspective, the questions presented could have arisen as a result of the consideration of any number of issues confronted by the legislature. Nevertheless, resolution of the constitutional issues presented will impact the school voucher and related programs.

This declaratory judgment action challenges the validity of two legislative instruments enacted during the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. [2013-0120 (La. 3]Specifically, the topics of this litigation are Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 99 (“SCR 99”) and 2012 La. Acts 2 (“Act 2” or “Act”), each of which addresses funding and a mechanism for the state to pay for the tuition costs of elementary and secondary school students physically attending, or otherwise undertaking individual course work, from nonpublic schools.

The case is before this court on direct appeal from a judgment declaring SCR 99 and Act 2 unconstitutional on grounds that those legislative instruments divert funds constitutionally reserved for public schools. Additionally, this court granted and consolidated the plaintiffs' appeal, so as to expeditiously resolve all of the issues presented.

After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments, and the constitutional provisions at issue, we agree with the district court that once funds are dedicated to the state's Minimum Foundation Program for public education, the constitution prohibits those funds from being expended on the tuition costs of nonpublic schools and nonpublic entities. Unlike the district court, we also find the procedures employed to enact SCR 99 violated the constitution inasmuch as that legislative instrument was intended to have the effect of law, but several requirements for enacting law were not observed. We find, after analytically severing the unconstitutional provisions of Act 2, that Act 2 does not violate the constitution's “one-object” rule.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2012, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 2, which, among other provisions, creates a “Course Choice Program,” and substantially amends the “Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence Program” (“SSEEP”), which is commonly referred to as the voucher program. As amended, the SSEEP now requires [2013-0120 (La. 4]the payment of Minimum Foundation Program (“MFP”) funds by the Louisiana Department of Education (“Department”) to nonpublic schools and further requires the Department to “transfer scholarship payments to each participating school on behalf of the responsible city or parish school district.” La. R.S. 17:4017. Additionally, the Course Choice Program requires the payment of MFP funds by the Department to online education providers, virtual education providers, postsecondary education institutions, and entities that offer vocational or technical course work. SeeLa. R.S. 17:4002.1–4002.6. The program also recognizes that students enrolled in home study programs are eligible participating students. Id.

In the same 2012 regular session, the legislature also passed SCR 99, the vehicle by which the legislature “approved” the 2012–2013 MFP formula adopted by the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (“BESE”) as required by La. Const. art. VIII, § 13(B), which dictates that BESE “annually develop and adopt a formula which shall be used to determine the cost of a minimum foundation program of education in all public elementary and secondary schools.” MFP funds are appropriated as a separate and distinct line item in the state budget. As a result, SCR 99 in part approves the formula adopted by BESE for funding the implementation of the programs created in Act 2, including this provision:

The amount for which the city or parish school district is responsible will be funded with a transfer from the MFP allocation for the city or parish school district in which the participating student resides to the participating nonpublic or public school on behalf of each student awarded a scholarship.

SCR 99, XII(B)(6).

Besides the SSEEP/voucher program and the Course Choice Program, SCR 99 also describes an early high school graduation program:

[2013-0120 (La. 5]The purpose of the Early High School Graduation Scholarship Program is to provide tuition and fee assistance to students graduating early from a public high school including state funded Scholarship student[s] thus enabling and encouraging the student to attend college in any public or private institution of higher education in Louisiana.

SCR 99, XII(C).

The plaintiffs—the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, the East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers, the Jefferson Federation of Teachers, as well as one parent and one teacher of public school children—filed a petition for declaratory judgment, naming as defendants the Department and BESE.¹ The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of SCR 99 and Act 2 and also sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.² The matter was consolidated with two similar declaratory judgment cases later brought by the Louisiana School Boards' Association and various member local school boards, ³ as well as the Louisiana Association of Educators and various member organizations and individual members.

In the several petitions for declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs alleged SCR 99 and Act 2 are an unconstitutional diversion of MFP funds, pursuant to La. Const. art. VIII, § 13(B), which requires the state to annually develop and adopt a formula to determine the cost of a minimum foundation program of education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as well as to equitably allocate the funds to parish and city school systems. The plaintiffs further asserted SCR 99 and Act 2 have [2013-0120 (La. 6]unconstitutionally allocated MFP funds that are constitutionally allocated to parish...