Sheff v. O'Neill

• Decision Date: 09 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 15255,15255
• Citation: 238 Conn. 1,678 A.2d 1267
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , 111 Ed. Law Rep. 360 Milo SHEFF et al. v. William A. O'NEILL et al.

Page 1267

678 A.2d 1267

238 Conn. 1, 111 Ed. Law Rep. 360

Milo SHEFF et al. v. William A. O'NEILL et al.

No. 15255.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 28, 1995.

Officially Released July 9, 1996. ^*

Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom were John Brittain, Martha Stone, Hartford, Philip D. Tegeler, Dennis D. Parker, New York City, pro hac vice, and, on the brief, Sandra DelValle, Hempstead, NY, pro hac vice, Kenneth Kimerling, New York City, pro hac vice, Wilfred Rodriguez, Brooklyn, NY, Christopher A. Hansen, Towson, MD, pro hac vice, Theodore M. Shaw, pro hac vice, and Marianne L. Engelman, Westport, pro hac vice, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, with whom were Gregory T. D'Auria, Carolyn K. Querijero, Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., and Martha Watts Prestley, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees (defendants).

Maurice T. FitzMaurice and Carolyn A. Magnan, Hartford, filed a brief, for the City of Hartford et al. as amici curiae.

Kathryn Emmett, Jane W. Glander, Stamford, and Elise Mayers Bouchner, Lafayette, LA, filed a brief, for the Capitol Region Conference of Churches et al. as amici curiae.

David S. Golub and Jonathan M. Levine, Stamford, filed a brief, for the Connecticut Legislative Black and Puerto Rican Caucus et al. as amici curiae.

Martin Margulies, Bridgeport, filed a brief, for the Society of American Law Teachers as amicus curiae.

Stephen C. Willey, Seattle, WA, pro hac vice, and Michael P. Koskoff, Bridgeport, filed a brief, for the Connecticut Federation of School Administrators et al. as amici curiae.

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The public elementary and high school students in Hartford suffer daily from the devastating effects that racial and ethnic isolation, as well as poverty, have had on their education. Federal constitutional law provides no remedy for their plight. The principal issue in this appeal is whether, under the unique provisions of our state constitution, the state, which already plays an active role in managing public schools, must take further measures to relieve the severe handicaps that burden these children's education. The issue is as controversial as the stakes are high. We hold today that the needy schoolchildren of Hartford have waited long enough. The constitutional imperatives contained in article eighth, § 1, ¹ and article first, §§ 1 and 20, ² of our state constitution entitle the plaintiffs to relief. At the same time, the constitutional imperative of separation of powers persuades us to afford the legislature, with the assistance of the executive branch, the opportunity, in the first instance, to fashion the remedy that will most appropriately respond to the constitutional violations that we have identified. The judgment of the trial court must, accordingly, be reversed.

I THE HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION

In their action seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the eighteen plaintiffs ³ filed a four count complaint in which they claimed that the defendants ⁴ had a constitutional obligation, under article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20, to remedy alleged educational inequities in the Hartford public schools. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to strike the complaint and for summary judgment. After an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that "state action exists under the facts and circumstances of this case," and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants.

A

The plaintiffs' revised four count complaint alleges that students in the Hartford public schools are burdened by severe educational disadvantages arising out of their racial and ethnic isolation and their socioeconomic deprivation. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, each count of their complaint is grounded on the proposition that the defendants have failed to fulfill their state constitutional responsibility to remedy these severe educational disadvantages. Count one alleges that the defendants bear responsibility for the de facto racial and ethnic segregation between Hartford and the surrounding suburban public school districts and thus have deprived the plaintiffs of an equal opportunity to a free public education as required by article first, §§ 1 and 20, and article eighth, § 1. Count two alleges that the defendants have perpetuated the racial and ethnic segregation that exists between Hartford and the surrounding suburban public school districts, and thus have discriminated against the plaintiffs and have failed to provide them with an equal opportunity to a free public education as required by article first, §§ 1 and 20, and article eighth, § 1. Count three alleges that the defendants have failed to provide the plaintiffs with an equal opportunity to a free public education as required by article first, §§ 1 and 20, and article eighth, § 1, because the defendants have maintained in Hartford a public school district that, by comparison with surrounding suburban public school districts: (1) is severely educationally disadvantaged; (2) fails to provide equal educational opportunities for Hartford schoolchildren; and (3) fails to provide a minimally adequate education for Hartford schoolchildren. Count four alleges that the defendants have failed to provide the plaintiffs with a substantially equal educational opportunity as required by Connecticut law, including General Statutes § 10-4a, ⁵ in violation of the plaintiffs' rights to due process under article first, §§ 8 and 10. ⁶

The defendants not only denied the underlying factual and legal premises of the plaintiffs' complaint, but also raised seven special defenses. These defenses alleged that the defendants were not liable because of: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) stare decisis; (3) separation of powers; (4) the lack of a justiciable controversy; (5) the plaintiffs' failure to join necessary parties, including the city of Hartford; (6) the absence of state action; and (7) the unavailability of court-ordered remedies.

The trial court initially denied the defendants' motions to strike and for summary judgment that were premised on these special defenses. After an evidentiary hearing, however, the court ruled in favor of the defendants on their sixth special defense. Relying heavily on principles drawn from federal constitutional law, the court determined that the plaintiffs could not prevail without establishing that state action was the "direct and sufficient cause of the conditions" alleged in their complaint, and concluded that they had failed to prove such causation. Finding no such state action, the court rendered judgment for the defendants without addressing the merits of the constitutional claims asserted by the plaintiffs.

B

Because of the importance of the novel and controversial questions of constitutional law raised in this litigation, pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c), we transferred to this court the plaintiffs' appeal from the judgment of the trial court. Noting that the plaintiffs' complaint had been pending since 1989, we held a special hearing, shortly after the appeal had been filed, to order supplementation of the trial record. We directed the parties to prepare a joint stipulation of all relevant undisputed facts and to assist the trial court in making findings of fact on matters upon which the parties could not agree. ⁷ Our resolution of this appeal has proceeded on the basis of this supplemented record, which the parties and the court promptly prepared in accordance with our order.

C

The stipulation of the parties and the trial court's findings establish the following relevant facts. Statewide, in the 1991-92 school year, children from minority groups constituted 25.7 percent of the public school population. In the Hartford public school system in that same period, 92.4 percent of the students were members of minority groups, including predominantly, students who were either African-American or Latino. ⁸ Fourteen of Hartford's twenty-five elementary schools had a white student enrollment of less than 2 percent. The Hartford public school system currently enrolls the highest percentage of minority students in the state. In the future, if current conditions continue, the percentage of minority students in the Hartford public school system is likely to increase rather than decrease. Since 1980, the percentage of African-Americans in the Hartford student population has decreased, while the percentage of Latinos has increased. Although enrollment of African-American students in the twenty-one surrounding suburban towns has increased by more than 60 percent from 1980 to 1992, only seven of these school districts had a minority student enrollment in excess of 10 percent in 1992. Because of the negative consequences of racial and ethnic isolation, a more integrated public school system would likely be beneficial to all schoolchildren.

A majority of the children who constitute the public school population in Hartford come from homes that are economically disadvantaged, that are headed by a single parent and in which a language other than English is spoken. The percentage of Hartford schoolchildren at the elementary level who return to the same school that they attended the previous year is the lowest such percentage in the state. Such socioeconomic factors impair a child's orientation toward and skill in learning and adversely affect a child's performance on standardized tests. The gap in the socioeconomic status between Hartford schoolchildren and schoolchildren from the surrounding twenty-one suburban towns has been increasing. The performance of Hartford schoolchildren on standardized tests falls significantly below that of schoolchildren from the twenty-one surrounding suburban towns.

Directly or indirectly, the state has always...