Con Law Center Amicus Briefs

Document Type

Court Filing

Publication Date

9-12-2003

Abstract

This case presents the issue of the Ohio Supreme Court’s violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying an adequate remedy to successful plaintiffs in a school funding case. In five decisions in the case of DeRolph v. Ohio from 1997 to the present, the Ohio Supreme Court has declared that Ohio’s school funding system is unconstitutional and ordered the state legislature to fix the funding system pursuant to an affirmative, structural injunction.2 To date, however, the state has continually refused to comply with the Ohio court’s injunction by making the required changes in the school funding system. Notwithstanding this open defiance, the Ohio Supreme Court in its decision of May 16, 2003, abruptly issued a writ of prohibition terminating the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the Court’s injunction thereby denying the successful plaintiffs a meaningful remedy in the case. State ex rel. State of Ohio v. Lewis, 789 N.E.2d 195 (Ohio 2003) (DeRolph V) (App. 1a16a). In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the state’s system for funding public schools which relied primarily on local property taxes violated the Ohio Constitution. DeRolph v. Ohio, 677 N.E.2d 733, 747 (1997) (DeRolph I). To address the systemic violation, the Ohio court awardeddeclaratory and injunctive relief. Id. It issued an affirmative, structural injunction requiring the state to “fix the system” and undergo a “complete systematic overhaul” to “create an entirely new school financing system” consistent with the constitutional requirement of a thorough and efficient public education system. Id. In a subsequent 2000 decision, the Court clarified what it meant by providing a “thorough and efficient” education system and repeated its injunctive command that the state legislature undertake a “complete systematic overhaul” of the school funding system. DeRolph v. Ohio, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000) (DeRolph II). When the State failed to respond to the judicial orders, the Ohio Supreme Court in a third decision ordered the legislature to implement specific steps to comply with the prior commands based on the state’s own evidence of available monies. DeRolph v. Ohio, 754 N.E.2d 1184, 1201 (Ohio 2001); see DeRolph v. Ohio, 758 N.E.2d 1113, 1120-21 (Ohio 2001) (Douglas, J., concurring). “The state is hereby ordered to implement the changes described above. . . . If the order receives less than full compliance, interested parties have remedies available to them.” DeRolph III, 754 N.E.2d at 1201. When the State sought reconsideration of that decision two months later based on the lack of funds, the Ohio Supreme Court referred the case to mediation. DeRolph, 758 N.E.2d at 1114. See Molly Townes O’Brien, At the Intersection of Public Policy and Private Process: CourtOrdered Mediation and the Remedial Process in School Funding Litigation, 18 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 391 (2003) (describing the mediation process in DeRolph and the potential benefits that might have been gained). When mediation failed, the Ohio Supreme Court repeated its general structural order to fix school funding: The General Assembly has not focused on the core constitutional directive of DeRolph I: “a complete systematic overhaul” of the school-funding system. Today we reiterate that that is what is needed, not further nibbling at the edges. Accordingly, we direct the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient. DeRolph v. Ohio, 780 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio 2002) (DeRolph IV) (App. 19a). At every step in the remedial process, the Ohio courts have been deferential to the institutional and practical concerns of the legislative branch. DeRolph IV (App. 19a). See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81 (1977) (holding that courts must defer to institutional defendants in crafting equitable relief). The Ohio courts abstained from designing their own corrective system and deferred to the expertise of the defendants in legislation and education. DeRolph I, 677 N.E.2d at 746-48; DeRolph II, 728 N.E.2d at 1019-20. The Supreme Court stayed the mandate to insulate the legislature and State from contempt penalties while giving them the necessary time to work through the complexities of correcting the system. DeRolph I, 677 N.E.2d at 747; DeRolph II, 728 N.E.2d at 1021 (granting defendants more time to comply with constitution). Even after the mediation failure and five years of defiance from the defendant, the Supreme Court continued to grant the Ohio defendants deference by merely repeating the mandate of structural relief rather than imposing more prophylactic or intrusive measures. DeRolph IV (App. 19a). However, the Ohio Supreme Court’s deference to the legitimate institutional concerns of the wrongdoer has evolved into complete denial of the plaintiffs’ right to relief for aproven violation of the law. See Wendy Parker, The Decline of Judicial Decisionmaking: School Desegregation and District Court Judges, 81 N.C. L. REV. 1623 (2003) (arguing that the courts’ deference to institutional defendants results in failure to vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights). After twelve years of litigation, and six years of ordered and expected systemic relief, the Ohio Supreme Court abruptly prohibited the trial court from enforcing the injunctive decrees. DeRolph V (App.1a-15a). The Ohio court’s flagrant denial of meaningful relief violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee of due process of law and necessitates this Court’s review.

Publication Title

U.S. Supreme Court

Download

Share

COinS