Zeyen v. Boise Sch. Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-207-BLW |
| Citation | 522 F.Supp.3d 788 |
| Parties | Mike ZEYEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Brian K. Julian, Andrea Julian Fontaine, Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP, Daniel Joseph Skinner, Boise School District, Boise, ID, for Defendants Basin District # 72, Post Falls District # 273.
Brian K. Julian, Andrea Julian Fontaine, Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP, Daniel Joseph Skinner, Boise School District, Boise, ID, David Paul Gardner, Jetta Hatch Mathews, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant Blaine County District # 61.
David Paul Gardner, Jetta Hatch Mathews, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Pocatello, ID, for Defendants Caldwell District # 132, Compass Public Charter School LEA # 455, Jefferson County Joint District # 251, Madison District # 321, McCall-Donnelly District # 421, Mountain Home District # 193, Twin Falls District # 411, Vallivue District # 139.
Brian K. Julian, Anderson Julian & Hull, Boise, ID, for Defendants Marsing District # 363, Melba Joint District # 136, Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School, Monticello Montessori School LEA # 474, North Star Charter School LEA # 493, SEI Tec Preston School District # 201, White Pine Charter School LEA # 464, Nezperce District # 302.
The Court has before it plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for partial summary judgment along with defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on the motions and took them under advisement. After further review, and based on the analysis below, the Court will (1) deny defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) deny the motion for class certification; and (3) deny plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
This is a class action challenging fees charged by school districts in contravention of the Idaho Constitution's requirement that education be free. The plaintiffs, who have students attending schools in the Pocatello and Bonneville School Districts, seek to proceed as class representatives of all patrons – that is, all students and parents – in 115 school districts and charter schools in the state of Idaho. Plaintiffs allege that the fees charged by these school districts violate Article IX, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution, which states as follows:
The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.
Plaintiffs argue that certain types of fees imposed by school districts violate this constitutional requirement that education be free and therefore constitute a taking of property without due process in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Their lawsuit seeks to recover the fees paid and obtain a declaratory judgment that prohibits the imposition of such fees in the future. In the specific motions now before the Court, plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all patrons in the 115 Idaho school districts who have paid such fees, and to obtain a partial summary judgment declaring that the fees for second-half day kindergarten violate the free-education provision of the Idaho Constitution.
The defendants respond by seeking summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Defendants central argument is that the Idaho Legislature has limited the relief available under the Idaho Constitution's education provision. By passing the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act (CBECA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2201 –2216, the Idaho Legislature prohibited patrons from seeking reimbursement of fees, defendants argue, requiring that this lawsuit be dismissed.
In the decision below, the Court holds that CBECA's ban on lawsuits to recover fees imposed in violation of the Idaho Constitution essentially nullifies the Takings Clause and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. With regard to plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently identified the types of fees they are challenging and hence are not now entitled to a class certification. Finally, the Court denies plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment because no named plaintiff has shown they attended kindergarten and paid fees not authorized by the free-education provision of the Idaho Constitution.
This action was preceded by lengthy litigation in the Idaho state courts. Between 1993 and 2005, a series of five appeals were decided by the Idaho Supreme Court challenging the level and method of funding for Idaho's public schools. In the midst of those appeals, the Idaho Supreme Court remanded one of the cases to the district court to determine the narrow issue of whether the Legislature had provided a means to fund facilities that provide a safe environment conducive to learning, pursuant to the thoroughness requirement of the Idaho Constitution, Article IX, § 1. That constitutional provision, quoted in full above, imposes a "duty [on] the Legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools."
Following a trial, the district court described, among other things, "the many safety concerns of specific school districts, such as structural problems and fire hazards." ISEEO v. Idaho , 142 Idaho 450, 129 P.3d 1199, 1204 (2005). Evidence showed that "57% of all Idaho school buildings had serious safety concerns." Id. at 1205. A 1999 report updating a 1993 assessment of facility safety concluded that "53 of the buildings needing serious and immediate attention in 1993 had deteriorated even further." Id. Based on this and other evidence, the district court concluded that the state funding system "is not adequate to meet the constitutional mandate to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools in a safe environment conducive to learning for Idaho's poorest school districts." Id.
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that decision but declined to impose any remedy, finding that to be the task of the Idaho Legislature:
We affirm the conclusion of the district court that the current funding system is simply not sufficient to carry out the Legislature's duty under the constitution. While the Legislature has made laudable efforts to address the safety concerns of various school districts, the task is not yet complete. The appropriate remedy, however, must be fashioned by the Legislature and not this Court. Quite simply, Article IX of our constitution means what it says: "[I]t shall be the duty of the Legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." Thus, it is the duty of the State, and not this Court or the local school districts, to meet this constitutional mandate. .... In adopting Article IX, the citizens of Idaho placed their trust in the collective wisdom, creativity, and expertise of our legislators, and we do the same. We are firmly convinced the Legislature will carry out its constitutional duties in good faith and in a timely manner. At this juncture, we will not remand the case to the district court, but will retain jurisdiction to consider future legislative efforts to comply with the constitutional mandate to provide a safe environment conducive to learning so that we may exercise our constitutional role in interpreting the constitution and assuring that its provisions are met.
Id. at 1209. Since that decision in 2005, plaintiffs have filed three state court actions along with this suit. In Joki v. Idaho , 162 Idaho 5, 394 P.3d 48 (2017), the plaintiffs initially sued the State and 114 school districts seeking to represent a class consisting of all students currently enrolled in the defendant school districts together with their parents and guardians. Plaintiffs alleged that the Idaho Legislature's inadequate funding of education, requiring school districts to impose fees, violated the free-education provision of the Idaho Constitution. Later, plaintiffs narrowed their complaint to seek (1) reimbursement of fees imposed by a single school district; and (2) a declaratory judgment against the State Defendants that the current system of funding education in Idaho is unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the State and plaintiffs appealed.
In the appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, the State defendants argued that the claims against them fell squarely within the terms of CBECA. See Idaho Code §§ 6-2201 –2216. CBECA authorizes a patron to sue a local school district for failing to provide constitutionally required educational services, but also states that before a patron can sue the State, the patron must first obtain a ruling from a district court that the local school district is not providing the required educational services and is either unwilling or unable to comply. Id. at 52. The plaintiffs in Joki sued the State without first obtaining this ruling from a district court, and the State defendants argued that CBECA required that they be dismissed. The Idaho Supreme Court agreed, rejecting plaintiffs' arguments that CBECA did not apply and that it violated provisions of the Idaho Constitution. Id. at 52-55.
In a separate action filed in state court – Zeyen v. Pocatello/Chubbuck School District – the plaintiff sued a single school district seeking to represent a class of all patrons of that single school district, alleging that the fees charged by the district were unconstitutional under Idaho's constitution. The district court held that CBECA barred recovery for fees improperly paid. When plaintiff tried to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Takings Clause, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial