Petrella v. Brownback

Decision Date18 October 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–3098.,11–3098.
PartiesDiane PETRELLA, next friend and guardian of minor N.P., minor C.P.; Nick Petrella, minor C.P., next friend and guardian of minor N.P.; Michelle Trouvé, next friend and guardian of minor J.T., minor Z.T., minor N.T.; Marc Trouvé, next friend and guardian of minor Z.T., minor N.T., minor J.T.; Meredith Bihuniak, next friend and guardian of minor S.B., minor O.B., minor A.B., minor E.B.; Chris Bihuniak, next friend and guardian of minor S.B., minor O.B., minor A.B., minor E.B.; Mike Washburn, next friend and guardian of minor A.W., minor R.W.; Laurence Florens, next friend and guardian of minor A.W., minor R.W.; Paul Erdner, next friend and guardian of minor M.E., minor A.E.; Julie Erdner, next friend and guardian of minor M.E., minor A.E.; Christophe Sailly, next friend and guardian of minor E.S., minor N.S.; Catalina Sailly, next friend and guardian of minor E.S., minor N.S.; John Webb Roberts, next friend and guardian of minor M.C.R., minor W.C.R.; Terre Manne, next friend and guardian of minor C.J.M.; Alison Barnes Martin, next friend and guardian of minor C.O.M., minor C.E.M.; Kurt Kuhnke, next friend and guardian of minor A.K.; Lisa Kuhnke, next friend and guardian of minor A.K., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Sam BROWNBACK, Governor of Kansas, in his official capacity; Dr. Diane Debacker, in her official capacity as Kansas Commissioner of Education; Janet Waugh, in her official capacity as Chair of the Kansas State Board of Education; Kathy Martin, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Education; Sue Storm, in her official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; Kenneth Willard, in his official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; John W. Bacon, in his official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; Dr. Walt Chappell, in his official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; Carolyn L. Wims–Campbell, in her official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; Jana Shaver, in her official capacity as Vice–Chair of the Kansas State Board of Education; Sally Cauble, in her official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; David T. Dennis, in her official capacity as a member of the Kansas State Board of Education; Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General, in his official capacity; Ron Estes, Kansas State Treasurer, in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees, and Jeff Gannon, next friend and guardian of minor L.G., minor A.G., minor G.G.; Meredith Gannon, next friend and guardian of minor L.G., minor A.G., minor G.G.; Andrea Burgess, next friend and guardian of minor J.B.; Jennifer Kennedy, next friend and guardian of minor O.K.; Schelena Oakman, next friend and guardian of minor C.O.; Martha Pint, next friend and guardian of minor C.P.; David Seeber, next friend and guardian of minor A.S., minor B.S.; Misty Seeber, next friend and guardian of minor A.S., minor B.S.; John Cain, next friend and guardian of minor L.C.; Becky Cain, next friend and guardian of minor L.C.; Darrin Cox, next friend and guardian of minor J.C.; Lois Cox, next friend and guardian of minor J.C.; Danie Eldredge, next friend and guardian of minor A.E.; Josh Eldredge, next friend and guardian of minor A.E.; Jim Holmes, next friend and guardian of minor J.H.; Joy Holmes, next friend and guardian of minor J.H.; Matt Newton, next friend and guardian of minor L.N.; Ivy Newton, next friend and guardian of minor L.N.; Glenn Owen, next friend and guardian of minor A.O.; Ryan Rank, next friend and guardian of minor M.R.; Beulah Walker, next friend and guardian of minor Q.W.; Bianca Alvarez, next friend and guardian of minor M.A.; Norma Del Real, next friend and guardian of minor P.D., minor V.D.; Adriana Figueroa, next friend and guardian of minor T.F.; Eva Herrera, next friend and guardian of minor D.H., minor G.H., minor K.H.; Rebecca Fralick, next friend and guardian of M.S.; Consuelo Treto, next friend and guardian of minor A.T.; Melissa Bynum, next friend and guardian of minor T.B.; Evette Hawthorne–Crosby, next friend and guardian of minor B.C.; Bryant Crosby, next friend and guardian of minor B.C.; George Mendez, next friend and guardian of minor G.M.; Monica Mendez, next friend and guardian of minor G.M.; Sally Murguia, next friend and guardian of minor A.M.; Ramon Murguia, next friend and guardian of minor A.M.; Clara Osborne, next friend and guardian of minor N.W., Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO (William F. Northrip, and Zach Chaffee–McClure, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, and Jonathan S. Massey, Massey & Gail, LLP, Washington, D.C., and Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, with her on the briefs), for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Arthur S. Chalmers, Hite, Fanning & Honeyman L.L.P., Wichita, KS (Gayle B. Tibbets, Hite, Fanning & Honeyman L.L.P., Wichita, KS; Jeffrey A. Chanay, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Kansas Attorney General, Topeka, KS; Cheryl L. Whelan, General Counsel, Kansas State Department of Education, Topeka, KS; Mark A. Ferguson and Eldon J. Shields, Gates, Shields & Ferguson, P.A., Overland Park, KS, with him on the brief), for DefendantsAppellees.

Alan L. Rupe, Kutak Rock LLP, Wichita, KS (John S. Robb, Somers, Robb & Robb, Newton, KS, with him on the brief), for IntervenorDefendantsAppellees.

Before GORSUCH, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

In this litigation, Appellants, plaintiffs below, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the statutory scheme by which the state of Kansas funds its public schools. The district court dismissed their suit for lack of standing. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude that the Appellants have standing because their alleged injury—unequal treatment by the state—would be redressed by a favorable decision. Accordingly, we REVERSE.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Kansas School District Finance and Quality Performance Act

The Kansas Constitution requires the Kansas legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” Kan. Const. art. 6, § 6. In 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the then-current school finance system (the School District Finance and Quality Performance Act, or Act) violated the state constitution because it “failed to make suitable provisions” for funding the public schools. See Montoy v. State, 278 Kan. 769, 120 P.3d 306, 310 (2005) (“Montoy I ”) (internal quotation marks omitted).1 Among the Act's constitutional shortcomings were an overall underfunding of public education, and a wealth-based disparity in public education funding based on differences in assessed property values from district to district. See id. At the same time, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the Act against an equal protection challenge, finding that the Act did not violate either the Kansas or United States constitutions on equal protection grounds. See id. at 308.

A few months after Montoy I, the Kansas Legislature passed new legislation that purported to address the Act's constitutional shortcomings. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the adequacy of that new legislation in Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817, 112 P.3d 923 (2005) (“Montoy II ”). As pertinent to this appeal, the Montoy II court concluded that the new legislation was still inadequate under the Kansas Constitution, both because it still failed to provide enough funding overall, and because its revisions to how local property taxes would be levied and distributed “exacerbate[d] disparities based on district wealth.” Montoy II, 112 P.3d at 937.

After Montoy II, the Kansas Legislature again amended the Act. This latest iteration of the Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72–6405 et seq., is the subject of the present litigation. The Kansas Supreme Court deemed the current version of the Act sufficient to bring the system into “substantial compliance” with its prior orders. See Montoy v. State, 282 Kan. 9, 138 P.3d 755, 765 (2006) ( “Montoy III ”).

The Act attempts to ensure equal per-pupil funding across all school districts according to a complex formula. The formula establishes a Base State Aid Per Pupil figure, seeKan. Stat. Ann. § 72–6410(b)(1), which is then multiplied by a given district's adjusted enrollment to determine the State Financial Aid,” i.e., the minimum funding that district will receive from the state. See id. § 72–6410(a). Adjustments to a district's actual enrollment numbers are made according to a series of weighting factors, which take into account such things as the number of bilingual or special education students in a given district; the number and percentage of “at-risk” students in the district; whether the district has unusually high or low enrollment; the transportation needs of the district; and whether a district is operating a new facility. See id.§§ 72–6411–72–6415b, 72–6442b. Thus, for example, a district with high numbers of at-risk students, or high numbers of students requiring bus transportation, will have its actual enrollment adjusted upwards, to help it meet the costs associated with those factors.

The Act requires each school district to levy an ad valorem property tax of 20 mills for school finance purposes. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72–6431. The amount of money raised through this local tax is designated the district's “Local Effort.” Id.§ 72–6410(c). If a district's Local Effort generates less than the level of State Financial Aid to which the district is entitled under the formula above, the State makes up the difference with General State Aid.” Id.§ 72–6416(b). If on the other hand, a district's Local Effort equals or exceeds the level of State Financial Aid to which it is entitled, the district receives no General State Aid. Id. Any Local Effort in excess of the State Financial Aid target is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • Kan. Natural Res. Coal. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 24 Agosto 2020
    ...F.3d at 449. Thus, the plaintiff's burden to establish standing at the pleading stage is "lightened considerably." Petrella v. Brownback, 697 F.3d 1285, 1292 (10th Cir. 2012).In other procedural injury cases, we have not required the level of specificity required by the majority. In Souther......
  • Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 21 Diciembre 2018
    ...involve ‘questions presented in an adversary context and capable of resolution through the judicial process.’ " Petrella v. Brownback , 697 F.3d 1285, 1292–93 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Massachusetts v. E.P.A. , 549 U.S. 497, 516, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) ). "The three requirem......
  • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 22 Enero 2020
    ...another branch is the determining factor.Mr. Hendrickson urges the Court to follow the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in Petrella v. Brownback , 697 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012), where it found that the attorney general and governor were proper defendants in a lawsuit "challenging the statutory sc......
  • Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 25 Octubre 2018
    ...a United States District Judge to decide when the claim against the United States accrued. Reply Br. at 10 (citing Petrella v. Brownback, 697 F.3d 1285, 1292 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.") ). Jemez Pueblo contends that its c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT