Moses v. Ruszkowski
| Decision Date | 13 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. S-1-SC-34974,S-1-SC-34974 |
| Parties | Cathy MOSES and Paul F. Weinbaum, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. Christopher RUSZKOWSKI, Secretary of Education, New Mexico Public Education Department, Defendant-Respondent, and Albuquerque Academy, et al., Defendants/Intervenors-Respondents. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
{1} In this opinion we reconsider the constitutionality of New Mexico's textbook loan program. In Moses v. Skandera ( Moses II ), this Court considered whether using public funds to lend textbooks to private school students violated Article XII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, which precludes the use of public funds "for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university." 2015-NMSC-036, 367 P.3d 838, vacated sub nom. , N.M. Ass'n of Non-public Sch. v. Moses , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2325, 198 L.Ed.2d 753 (2017) (mem.). This Court held "that the plain meaning and history of Article XII, Section 3 forbids the provision of books for use by students attending private schools, whether such schools are secular or sectarian." Moses II , 2015-NMSC-036, ¶ 2, 367 P.3d 838. The United States Supreme Court subsequently vacated this Court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer , 582 U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017). N.M. Ass'n of Non-public Sch. , 137 S.Ct. 2325.
{2} On remand, we conclude that this Court's previous interpretation of Article XII, Section 3 raises concerns under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To avoid constitutional concerns, we hold that the textbook loan program, which provides a generally available public benefit to students, does not result in the use of public funds in support of private schools as prohibited by Article XII, Section 3. We also hold that the textbook loan program is consistent with Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution, which addresses appropriations for educational purposes, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, which limits "any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation."
{3} Cathy Moses and Paul F. Weinbaum (Petitioners) initiated this case by filing a complaint for declaratory judgment against Hanna Skandera, the Secretary of the New Mexico Public Education Department (Department).1 Petitioners sought a declaration that the Instructional Material Law (IML), NMSA 1978, §§ 22-15-1 to -14 (1967, as amended through 2011), violates several provisions of the New Mexico Constitution because the IML provides for the distribution of public funds to private schools.
{4} The IML establishes an instructional material fund that is administered by the Department. See § 22-15-5(A). The Department uses the fund to purchase textbooks that are loaned free of charge to public and private school students enrolled in first through twelfth grades and in early childhood education programs. See §§ 22-15-5(B), 22-15-7(A); see also § 22-15-2(C) (). Although schools play a role in the implementation of the IML, they do so as agents for the benefit of their students. See §§ 22-15-7(B), 22-15-8(B). The Department allocates the money in the instructional material fund to schools based on the number of students enrolled. See § 22-15-9(A). The schools select textbooks from a "multiple list" approved by the Department. See §§ 22-15-2(D), 22-15-8(B). The IML permits schools to use a portion of their allocated funds for the purchase of instructional materials, classroom materials, and "items that are not on the multiple list; provided that no funds shall be expended [by a private school] for religious, sectarian or nonsecular materials." Section 22-15-9(C). The Department distributes the textbooks to the schools, see § 22-15-7(B), and the schools disseminate the textbooks to their students, see § 22-15-7(C). Schools are responsible for the safekeeping of the textbooks, id. , and may hold a student or parent "responsible for the loss, damage or destruction of" a textbook that is "in the possession of the student." Section 22-15-10(B).
{5} Petitioners moved for summary judgment in the district court. At a summary judgment hearing, the district court indicated that it intended to grant the motion based on Zellers v. Huff , 1951-NMSC-072, 55 N.M. 501, 236 P.2d 949 (). But before the district court entered summary judgment, Intervenors, the Albuquerque Academy, the New Mexico Association of Non-public Schools, Rehoboth Christian School, St. Francis School, Hope Christian School, Sunset Mesa School, and Anica and Maya Benia moved to intervene. The district court granted the motion to intervene and ordered the parties to submit additional briefing on whether Zellers precluded the use of IML funds to purchase textbooks for distribution to private schools. At a second summary judgment hearing, the district court concluded that Zellers did not constitute binding or persuasive authority, denied Petitioners' motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Moses v. Skandera (Moses I ), 2015-NMCA-036, ¶ 2, 346 P.3d 396, rev'd , 2015-NMSC-036, ¶¶ 12, 41, 367 P.3d 838.
{6} Petitioners sought review by this Court, raising five issues:
(1) whether this Court's decision in Zellers constituted dicta; (2) whether the IML violates Article XII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution ; (3) whether the IML violates Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution ; (4) whether the IML violates Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution ; and (5) whether the IML violates Article II, Section 11 of the New Mexico Constitution.
Moses II , 2015-NMSC-036, ¶ 11, 367 P.3d 838. This Court held that loaning textbooks to private school students violated Article XII, Section 3 and declined to reach the remaining issues. Moses II , 2015-NMSC-036, ¶ 12, 367 P.3d 838.
{7} The New Mexico Association of Non-public Schools filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The day after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Trinity Lutheran , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 198 L.Ed.2d 551, the Supreme Court granted review of this Court's opinion in Moses II , vacated this Court's judgment, and remanded the case to this Court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran . See N.M. Ass'n of Non-public Sch. , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2325, 198 L.Ed.2d 753. In accordance with the Supreme Court's directive, in this opinion we take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the textbook loan program under the New Mexico Constitution.
{8} On remand, Petitioners argue that loaning textbooks to private school students under the IML violates three provisions of the New Mexico Constitution: (1) Article XII, Section 3, which prohibits the use of public funds "for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university"; (2) Article IV, Section 31, which precludes an appropriation for "educational ... purposes to any person, corporation, association, institution or community, not under the absolute control of the state"; and (3) Article IX, Section 14, which limits "any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation."
{9} The Department and Intervenors argue that Article XII, Section 3, as interpreted by the Court in Moses II , violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. They ask this Court to interpret Article XII, Section 3 in a manner that permits the state to loan textbooks to private school students under the IML and assert that such an interpretation would be consistent with the United States Constitution.
{10} This Court applies a de novo standard of review to a constitutional challenge to a statute. Bounds v. State ex rel. D'Antonio , 2013-NMSC-037, ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 457. In doing so, we presume that the statute is valid and will uphold it "unless we are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Legislature went outside the bounds fixed by the Constitution in enacting the challenged legislation." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "We will not question the wisdom, policy, or justness of a statute, and the burden of establishing that the statute is invalid rests on the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To determine whether loaning textbooks to private school students constituted support of private schools in violation of Article XII, Section 3, this Court considered the historical circumstances that led to the provision's adoption, including the nationwide controversy over public education....
To continue reading
Request your trial