Shea v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 82118 |
| Citation | 510 P.3d 148 |
| Parties | Caryne SHEA, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children A.S. and M.S.; Venecia Sanchez, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Child Y.S.; Beth Martin, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children R.M. and H.M.; Calen Evans, Individually and as Next Friend of His Minor Child C.E.; Paula Arzoian, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Child A.A.; Karen Puleo, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children J.D. Jr., Jas. D., and Jac. D.; Christina Backus, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Child D.B.; Cameron Backus, Individually and as Next Friend of His Minor Child D.B.; and Alexandra Ellis, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children L.E., M.E., and B.E., Appellants, v. The STATE of Nevada ; the State of Nevada Department of Education ; Jhone Ebert, Nevada Superintendent of Public Education, in Her Official Capacity; and the State of Nevada Board of Education, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, and Bradley S. Schrager and Daniel Bravo, Las Vegas; Educate Nevada NOW and Amanda J. Morgan, Las Vegas, for Appellants.
Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Heidi J. Parry Stern, Solicitor General, Steven G. Shevorski, Chief Litigation Counsel, and Sabrena K. Clinton, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondents.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.
Appellants are nine parents, individually and as next friends of their minor children, who are students attending public schools in the districts of Clark, Washoe, and White Pine Counties (collectively, Shea). Respondents are the State of Nevada, the Nevada Department of Education, Jhone Ebert, in her official capacity as Nevada Superintendent of Public Education, and the Nevada State Board of Education (collectively, the State), all of whom are responsible for implementing Nevada's public education policy.
Shea filed a complaint against the State alleging that Nevada's system of public education has failed its students, as evidenced by the State's ongoing poor rankings and continued failure to achieve the standards that she contends are required for a sufficient, basic education under Article 11, Sections 1, 2, and 6 of the Nevada Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint, determining that Shea's claims presented nonjusticiable political questions. We conclude, after clarifying our jurisprudence regarding the political question doctrine, that the plain language of the relevant constitutional provisions demonstrates a clear, textual commitment of public education to the Nevada Legislature by granting the Legislature broad discretionary authority over such matters. Because Shea's claims are inextricably linked to the textual commitment of public education to the Legislature under the Nevada Constitution, we conclude that her claims are nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we affirm.
Shea filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the First Judicial District Court. Among other things, Shea alleged that years of inaction by the State and inadequate funding by the Legislature created a systemic failure within Nevada's public education system. Shea contended that, because of these shortcomings, Nevada's students are ill-equipped to succeed in higher education and future careers. Shea challenged the adequacy of the Nevada public education system, arguing that the amount of funding and other resources provided by the State fall hideously short of the sufficiency required by the Nevada Constitution, state law, and the various benchmarks established by the Nevada Department of Education. Shea alleged that the State's deficiencies created a public education system that fails to meet the standards of a basic, sufficient, uniform, and constitutional education by continually failing to provide adequate physical facilities and classrooms, access to adequate learning instrumentalities, adequate teaching in classes of appropriate size, and reasonably current basic curriculum.
Shea supported her claims with various statistics1 that she alleged evince the State's failure to meet the needs of the state's diverse student population. Shea asserted causes of action based on the State's purported failure to provide Nevada's students with a qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient education as required by Article 11, Sections 1, 2, and 6 of the Nevada Constitution (the education clauses).2 Shea sought declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that the district court, among other things, (1) declare that a sufficient education is a basic right under the Nevada Constitution, (2) declare that the Nevada public education funding system is inadequate to provide or guarantee the basic right of a sufficient education in violation of the Nevada Constitution, (3) enjoin the State from implementing any school finance system that does not meet the sufficiency required by Nevada law and policy, and (4) retain jurisdiction until the court ensures that the State's public education financing system comports with the sufficiency requirements established by the court.
The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5). The State argued, in pertinent part, that Shea's claims presented nonjusticiable political questions. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the political question doctrine. Specifically, the district court determined that Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution textually commits Nevada's education policy to the Legislature. The district court emphasized that the Nevada Constitution grants the Legislature discretion to (1) appropriate the amount of money it deems to be sufficient to fund public school operations and (2) determine what programs and processes should be adopted to provide for a uniform system of public education in Nevada. Additionally, the district court found that the aspirational nature of the education clauses does not mandate or guarantee a public education system of a particular quality or quantity or attainment of specific educational outcomes. The district court also found that it is inappropriate for the judiciary to resolve issues relating to the adequacy of the public education system because it lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards to effectively resolve such issues and would require the judicial branch to make public policy in violation of the separation of powers guarantee. Shea appealed.
An order granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008). A decision to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5) is rigorously reviewed on appeal, with all factual allegations in the complaint presumed true and all inferences drawn in favor of the complainant. Id. at 227-28, 181 P.3d at 672. Dismissing a complaint is appropriate "only if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief." Id. at 228, 181 P.3d at 672.
Shea's complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question
The State argues that while an adequate education of a particular level of quality is good public policy, the education clauses of the Nevada Constitution do not permit the courts to participate in decisions as to what constitutes an adequate education or what level of education funding is sufficient. We agree.
The political question doctrine
"This court has a long history of requiring an actual justiciable controversy as a predicate to judicial relief." Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. 625, 630, 218 P.3d 847, 850 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The separation of powers doctrine is the most important foundation for preserving and protecting liberty by preventing the accumulation of power in any one branch of government." Berkson v. LePome, 126 Nev. 492, 498, 245 P.3d 560, 564 (2010). The Nevada Constitution allocates governmental power between "three distinct and coequal branches of government, as set forth in Article 4 (legislative), Article 5 (executive), and Article 6 (judicial)." Id. "The Legislature enacts laws, and in turn, the executive branch is tasked with carrying out and enforcing those laws." N. Lake Tahoe Fire Prot. Dist . v. Washoe Cty. Comm'rs, 129 Nev. 682, 687, 310 P.3d 583, 587 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The judicial branch has "the authority to hear and determine justiciable controversies" and "to declare what the law is [,] or has been. " Id. (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). "As coequal branches, each of the three governmental departments has inherent power to administer its own affairs and perform its duties, so as not to become a subordinate branch of government." Berkson, 126 Nev. at 498, 245 P.3d at 564 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"The political question doctrine stems from the separation of powers essential to the American system of government." N. Lake Tahoe Fire Prot. Dist., 129 Nev. at 686, 310 P.3d at 586. "This doctrine exists for one very important reason—‘to prevent one branch of government from encroaching on the powers of another branch.’ " Id. (quoting Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy , 125 Nev. 285, 292, 212 P.3d 1098, 1103 (2009) ). "Under the political question doctrine, controversies are precluded from judicial review when they revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the legislative and executive branches." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial