Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. v. Tenn. Dep't of Educ.

• Decision Date: 18 May 2022
• Docket Number: M2020-00683-SC-R11-CV
• Citation: Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. v. Tenn. Dep't of Educ., 645 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2022)
• Parties: METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, et al. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

645 S.W.3d 141

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, et al.

v.TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.

No. M2020-00683-SC-R11-CV

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT NASHVILLE.

February 24, 2022 Session¹

FILED May 18, 2022

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Jim Newsom, Special Counsel; Stephanie A. Bergmeyer, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Matt R. Dowty, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellants, Tennessee Department of Education, Governor of the State of Tennessee, and Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education.

Justin Owen, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Star Brumfield.

Jason I. Coleman, Brentwood, Tennessee; Arif Panju, Austin, Texas; and David G. Hodges and Keith Neely, Arlington, Virginia, for the appellants, Natu Bah and Builiguissa Diallo.

Brian K. Kelsey and Daniel R. Suhr, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellants, Greater Praise Christian Academy, Sensational Enlightenment Academy Independent School, Ciera Calhoun, Alexandria Medlin, and David Wilson, Sr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Allison L. Bussell, and Melissa Roberge, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

Marlinee C. Iverson and E. Lee Whitwell, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Shelby County Government.

Ty E. Howard and Caroline D. Spore, Nashville, Tennessee; and Chris Patterson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the amici curiae, The Alliance for School Choice, Southern Christian Leadership Conference-Memphis Chapter, and Latinos for Tennessee.

Yvonne K. Chapman, Memphis, Tennessee, for the amici curiae, Rep. Glen Casada, former Rep. Bill Dunn, former Sen. Dolores Gresham, Rep. Esther Helton, former Rep. Andy Holt, Sen. Jack Johnson, Sen. Brian Kelsey, Rep. Sabi Kumar, Rep. William Lamberth, Rep. Dennis Powers, former Rep. Robin Smith, and Rep. Mark White.

Robert F. Parsley, Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Leslie Davis Hiner, Indianapolis, Indiana, for the amici curiae, EdChoice, Inc. and Foundation for Excellence in Education, Inc.

Christopher M. Wood, Thomas H. Castelli, and Stella Yarbrough, Nashville, Tennessee; Christine Bischoff and Lindsey Rubenstein, Jackson, Mississippi; and David G. Sciarra, Wendy Lecker, and Jessica Levin, Newark, New Jersey, for the amici curiae, McEwen Plaintiffs, Tennessee NAACP, Pastors for Tennessee Children and Pastors for Children.

Richard L. Colbert, Nashville, Tennessee, for the amici curiae, Tennessee Education Association, Metropolitan Nashville Education Association, and United Education Association of Shelby County.

Roger A. Page, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jeffrey S. Bivins, J., and Thomas R. Frierson, II, Sp. J., joined.Sharon G. Lee, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Holly Kirby, J., joined.Sarah K. Campbell, J., not participating.

OPINION

Roger A. Page, C.J.

This case is before us on an interlocutory appeal limited to a single claim: Plaintiffs’² constitutional challenge to the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program (the "ESA Act" or the "Act"), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-6-2601 to -2612, under article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution(the "Home Rule Amendment" or the "Amendment").The trial court held that Plaintiffs had standing to pursue this claim and denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss on that basis.The court held that the ESA Act is unconstitutional under the Home Rule Amendment and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.The trial court then sua sponte granted Defendants an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals granted their application for an interlocutory appeal by permission pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment with respect to the issue of standing and the issue of the constitutionality of the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment.We hold that Plaintiffs have standing to bring their Home Rule Amendment claim and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to that issue.However, we hold that the ESA Act does not implicate the Home Rule Amendment such that the Act is not rendered unconstitutional by the Amendment, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to that issue.Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Home Rule Amendment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment dismissing that claim, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and for consideration of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

I.Factual and Procedural Background

Enacted by the Tennessee General Assembly in 2019, the Education Savings Account Pilot Program, see2019 Tenn. Pub. Actsch. 506(codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-6-2601 to -2612), establishes a program allowing a limited number of eligible students³ to directly receive their share of state and local education funds, which would ordinarily be provided to the public-school system they attend, to pay for a private school education and associated expenses.The maximum number of eligible students allowed to participate in the program increases over a five-year period from 5,000 students in year one to 15,000 students in year five.Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-2604(c)(2020).The Act provides that only students who are zoned to attend a school in Metro Nashville Public Schools, Shelby County Schools, or the Achievement School District("ASD")⁴ are eligible to participate in the program.⁵

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County("Metro"), Shelby County Government("Shelby County"), and Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education("Metro School Board") filed a declaratory judgment action that named as defendants Governor Bill Lee, the Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner, and the Tennessee Department of Education(collectively, the "State").In their complaint, Metro, Shelby County, and the Metro School Board asserted that the ESA Act violates several provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, namely the Home Rule Amendment, Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 9, cl. 2; the equal protection clauses, id.art. I, § 8;id.art. XI, § 8; and the education clause, id.art. XI, § 12.The trial court allowed parents of public-school children in Davidson and Shelby counties (the "Natu Bah Intervenors") in addition to two independent schools, Greater Praise Christian Academy and Sensational Enlightenment Academy Independent School, and additional parents wanting their children to participate in the ESA program (collectively, the "Greater Praise Intervenors") to intervene and participate as defendants.

On March 6, 2020, the Greater Praise Intervenors filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the constitutional claims raised by Metro, Shelby County, and the Metro School Board were without merit and that the Metro School Board did not have standing to challenge the Act.Similarly, on March 11, 2020, the State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that none of the suing entities had standing, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the equal protection claim and education clause claim were not ripe for review.⁶Metro, Shelby County, and the Metro School Board filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2020, maintaining that the Act violated the Home Rule Amendment.The Natu Bah Intervenors filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 15, 2020, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The trial court held a hearing on April 29, 2020, and issued its memorandum and order on May 4, 2020.While the court dismissed the Metro School Board as a plaintiff for lack of standing,⁷ it granted Metro and Shelby County's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the ESA Act violates the Home Rule Amendment, and enjoined the State from implementing the Act.Thus, the State, Greater Praise Intervenors, and Natu Bah Intervenors’ (collectively, the "Defendants")motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings as they applied to the Home Rule Amendment claim were denied.The trial court took under advisement pending motions addressing Metro and Shelby County's equal protection claim and their education clause claim,⁸ and deferred ruling on the motions in the case of McEwen v. Lee.The trial court sua sponte granted permission to Defendants to seek an interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9(a).On May 13, 2020, the trial court denied Defendants’ joint motion for a stay pending appeal.

The State, Greater Praise Intervenors, and Natu Bah Intervenors filed applications for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.The State and Natu Bah Intervenors also moved the intermediate appellate court for a stay pending appeal.On May 19, 2020, the Court of Appeals declined to review the trial court's order denying a stay but granted Defendants’ applications for appeal.The intermediate appellate court specified the following issues for review:

1.Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the county government plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ESA Program under the Home Rule Amendment.

2.Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the ESA Program violates the Home Rule Amendment, article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution.

The Court of Appeals expedited the appeal, and this Court declined to assume jurisdiction of the case or to review the denial of the stay on June 4, 2020.The intermediate appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court, holding that Metro and Shelby County had standing to challenge the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment and that the Act was unconstitutional pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment.Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. v. Tenn. Dept. of Educ.,...