Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist.
Decision Date | 01 May 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. A-92-CA-75,A-92-CA-81. |
Citation | 791 F. Supp. 1170 |
Parties | Coleman H. SMITH, et al. v. TRAVIS COUNTY EDUCATION DISTRICT, et al. CONNELL ESTATES, et al. v. TRAVIS COUNTY EDUCATION DISTRICT, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James H. Keahey, Austin, Tex., for Coleman H. Smith, and all other taxpayers in Texas similarly situated.
Mark L. Perlmutter, law offices of Mark L. Perlmutter, Frank Powell, Powell & Associates, Austin, Tex., for The Connell Estates, Nations Bank, N.A., Giles W. Dalby, Elizabeth Dalby Elliott, Rebecca Dalby Whitmire, Alan B. Connell, Jr., Lee D. Vendig, Sara S. Jackson, Mary S. Forbes, Paul G. Spining, Jr., Colleen Spining, Sara Jane Spining Caswell, Richard Lawrence Spining, Jr., Shannon Ann Spining, James D. Howell, Heidi Dole Howell, Mathew Andre Howell, Giles C. McCrary, Louise McCrary, Mary McCrary Brewer, Craig Wallace, CPR Energy, Hattie Bess Park, Alan B. Connell, George W. Spining, Ruth N. Spining, Paul G. Spining, III, Robert C. Park, Harry M. Park, Jr., Stephenville Bank and Trust, Mary Park Lilly, John Lott, Ryla T. Lott, John F. Lott, Jr., Patricia Lott Kirkpatrick, 4JK, Inc., LLB, Inc., Pollard & Lott, Inc., M. Frank Powell, Lee D. Vendig, Michael H. Shelby, Jeanne F. Shelby, Jeanne F. Shelby Agency, Patrick B. Shelby, New Waskom Gas Gathering, Inc., Robert B. Payne, Jr., and all consol. plaintiffs.
William H. Bingham, McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, Austin, Tex., for Travis County Educ. Dist., et al.
Toni Hunter, Atty. General's Office, Austin, Tex., for Dan Morales.
James R. Raup, McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, Austin, Tex., for County Educ. Dist. No. 11.
William M. Buechler, Henslee, Ryan & Groce, Austin, Tex., for County Educ. Dist. No. 24, Coleman County Educ. Dist., Collin County Educ. Dist., County Educ. Dist. No. 26, County Educ. Dist. No. 31.
John Pierce Griffin, Nichols, Jackson, Kirk & Dillard, Austin, Tex., for Dallas County Educ. Dist.
Earl Luna, Dallas, Tex., for Denton County Educ. Dist.
D. Kirk Swinney, Roy L. Armstrong, McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, Austin, Tex., for Runnells County Educ. Dist.
John Crumpton Hardy, III, Hardy & Atherton, Tyler, Tex., for Smith County Educ. Dist.
The basic issue before this Court is whether a federal court can and should enjoin the collection of taxes under a tax system that violates the state's own constitution, where the state's own highest court, although holding the tax system unconstitutional, further declared that the declaration of unconstitutionality under the state constitution cannot be used as a defense by taxpayers to avoid payment or to seek refunds of taxes due and that will be due in the future under the unconstitutional system.
In its most recent opinion relating to the school finance system, the Texas Supreme Court provides a detailed discussion of the controversy and the litigation that has occurred and continues to occur with respect to public education in the State of Texas. See Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 826 S.W.2d 489, 494-99 (Tex.1992) ("Edgewood III"). Twice before Edgewood III, The Texas Supreme Court had addressed the State's school finance system. See generally: Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989) ("Edgewood I"); and 804 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.1991) ("Edgewood II"). The Edgewood III decision pertains directly to the present cause of action.
In Edgewood III, the main issue before the Texas Supreme Court was whether the current school finance system, as created by Senate Bill 351, was constitutional under the State Constitution. Edgewood III, at 493. Numerous school districts and individual citizens challenged the state constitutionality of this system. Id. The State of Texas and other school districts and citizens argued that the most recent enactment by the State legislature was constitutional under the State constitution. Id. Most, and practically all, of the taxpayers in this suit were not before the Texas Supreme Court in Edgewood III, but the effect of the Edgewood III decision was upon all of the property taxpayers in the state. The Texas Supreme Court held that this legislative enactment violated two separate provisions of the State constitution. Id. at 493. The Texas Supreme Court summarized the school finance system created by Senate Bill 351:
Edgewood III, at 498-99 (citations and footnotes omitted).1
Various taxpayers affected by this tax system created by Senate Bill 351 seek injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the taxes due for the 1992 year. These taxpayers also seek declaratory relief regarding the taxes due and paid for the 1991 year. This court has previously certified this action as a class action with respect to the plaintiffs and the defendants. As a practical matter, the plaintiffs face a state remedy that is unavailing and a dilemma that procedurally is so tangled as to make Gordian's Knot look like a simple square knot. As Alexander's sword remedied Alexander's own dilemma, the United States Constitution provides the plaintiffs with a remedy.2 Because of the complexities and seriousness of the issues involved in this case, a detailed discussion of the legal principles is warranted.
The defendant County Education Districts and the defendant-intervenors Texas Education Agency and the Attorney General of the State of Texas raise numerous jurisdictional arguments that this Court either lacks jurisdiction to hear these causes of action or should abstain from hearing these causes of action. This Court will address all of the issues raised by the defendants.
If the Court finds that this action is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341, then this Court has jurisdiction to hear this cause of action under the general federal jurisdiction statute and under the more specific civil rights jurisdiction statute. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 states:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. More specifically, 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 states in pertinent part that:
28 U.S.C. § 1343. Under the jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), there is no distinction between personal liberties and property rights. Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538, 542-543, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 1117, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972).
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees in pertinent part that:
... nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...
U.S. Const. Amend. 5. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states in pertinent part:
Section 1.... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Const. Amend. 14 § 1. The due process rights guaranteed by both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment protect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Houston v. Harris County Outdoor Advertising Ass'n
...collection of taxes, including one that violates state law or provisions of the state Constitution. See Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist., 791 F.Supp. 1170, 1178 n. 5 (W.D.Tex.), vacated on other grounds, 968 F.2d 453 (5th Cir.1992). [emphasis in original] Despite the fact that appellees w......
-
Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist.
...the public interest in the education of children outweighed the injury to the taxpayers resulting from the due process violation. 791 F.Supp. 1170, 1203-04. II. The taxpayers argue that the district court erred in refusing to award injunctive relief. On cross-appeal, the defendants contend ......
-
Educational issues and judicial oversight.
...Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 826 S.W.2d 489, 515 (Tex. 1992). (102) Id. at 522. (103) Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist., 791 F. Supp. 1170, 1176 (W.D. Tex. (104) Id. at 1176-78. (105) Id. at 1178. (106) Id. at 1199-1200. (107) Id. at 1196. (108) Id. at 1202. (109) Id. (110) Id......