Sheff v. O'Neill: 1996 Decision - Center for Children's Advocacy

88 Pages·2007·0.75 MB·English

678A.2d1267 Page1
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
pleadings, with respect to counts alleging per se
claim that they suffered from unconstitutional se-
SupremeCourtofConnecticut.
gregation and that disparities in racial and ethnic
MiloSHEFFetal.
composition of city's public school as compared
v.
with schools in surrounding school districts viol-
WilliamA.O'NEILLetal.
ated their constitutional rights, stated claim for
No.15255.
deprivation of substantially equal educational op-
portunity; (6) children's pleadings, with respect to
ArguedSept.28,1995.
FN* count alleging that state officials had failed to
OfficiallyReleasedJuly9,1996.
provide children in city public school system with
educational resources necessary to obtain minim-
FN* July 9, 1996, the date that this de-
ally adequate education, failed to implicate consti-
cision was released as a slip opinion, is the
tutional right to substantially equal educational op-
operative date for all substantive and pro-
portunity; (7) school districting scheme, as codified
ceduralpurposes.
in districting and attendance statutes, was unconsti-
Public school children brought action against state tutional; and (8) further judicial intervention would
officials for declaratory judgment to determine be stayed to afford General Assembly opportunity
whether defendants had failed to provide them with totakeappropriatelegislativeaction.
substantiallyequaleducationalopportunityasresult
Reversedandremandedwithdirections.
of alleged segregation by race and ethnicity of stu-
dents in metropolitan area and for injunctive relief.
Berdon,J.,concurredandfiledopinion.
The Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-
New Britain at Hartford, Hammer, J., found no
Borden, J., dissented and filed opinion in which
state action and entered judgment for defendants.
CallahanandPalmer,JJ.,joined.
Children appealed. Following transfer, the Supreme
Court, Peters, C.J., held that: (1) precedents com- WestHeadnotes
pelled conclusion that balance would be struck in
[1]ConstitutionalLaw92 2525
favor of justiciability of children's complaint seek-
ing judicial enforcement of right to substantially
92ConstitutionalLaw
equal educational opportunity under Constitution;
92XXSeparationofPowers
(2) under Connecticut law, which imposes affirmat-
92XX(C)JudicialPowersandFunctions
ive constitutional obligation on legislature to
92XX(C)2EncroachmentonLegislature
provide substantially equal educational opportunity
92k2499ParticularIssuesandApplica-
for all public school children, state action doctrine
tions
wasnotdefensetochildren'sclaimsofconstitution-
92k2525 k. Taxation and Public
al deprivation; (3) existence of extreme racial and
Finance.MostCitedCases
ethnic isolation in public school system deprives
(Formerly92k70.1(12))
school children of substantially equal educational
Under doctrine of separation of powers, courts do
opportunity and requires state to take further re-
not have jurisdiction to decide cases that involve
medial measures; (4) legislature is required to take
matters that textually have been reserved to legis-
affirmative responsibility to remedy segregation in
lature, such as implementation of constitutional
public schools, regardless of whether that segrega-
spending cap or appointment of additional judges.
tion has occurred de jure or de facto; (5) children's
U.S.C.A.Const.Art.3,§1etseq.
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page2
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
[2]ConstitutionalLaw92 2452 school children's complaint seeking judicial en-
forcement of right to substantially equal education-
92ConstitutionalLaw
alopportunityunderConstitution;justaslegislature
92XXSeparationofPowers
has constitutional duty to fulfill its affirmative ob-
92XX(C)JudicialPowersandFunctions
ligation to public school children, so judiciary has
92XX(C)1InGeneral
constitutional duty to review whether legislature
92k2452 k. Determination of Powers
has fulfilled its obligation. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1,
ofOtherBranchesinGeneral.MostCitedCases
§§1,20;Art.8,§1.
(Formerly92k67)
In absence of reservation in text of constitution of [5]Action13 6
matterstolegislature,itisroleanddutyofjudiciary
13Action
to determine whether legislature has fulfilled its af-
13IGroundsandConditionsPrecedent
firmative obligations within constitutional prin-
13k6 k. Moot, Hypothetical or Abstract
ciples.U.S.C.A.Const.Art.3,§1etseq.
Questions.MostCitedCases
[3]ConstitutionalLaw92 2452
Courts106 35
92ConstitutionalLaw
106Courts
92XXSeparationofPowers
106INature,Extent,andExerciseofJurisdiction
92XX(C)JudicialPowersandFunctions
inGeneral
92XX(C)1InGeneral
106k34PresumptionsastoJurisdiction
92k2452 k. Determination of Powers
106k35k.InGeneral.MostCitedCases
ofOtherBranchesinGeneral.MostCitedCases
Considerations of justiciability must be balanced
(Formerly92k67)
against principle that every presumption is to be in-
Deciding whether matter has in any measure been
dulgedinfavorofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.
committed by Constitution to another branch of
government, or whether action of that branch ex-
[6]Schools345 148(1)
ceeds whatever authority has been committed, is it-
self delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation
345Schools
and is responsibility of Supreme Court as ultimate
345IIPublicSchools
interpreter of Constitution. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3,
345II(L)Pupils
§1etseq.
345k148NatureofRighttoInstructionin
General
[4]ConstitutionalLaw92 2508
345k148(1) k. In General. Most Cited
Cases
92ConstitutionalLaw
Under Connecticut law, which imposes affirmative
92XXSeparationofPowers
constitutional obligation on legislature to provide
92XX(C)JudicialPowersandFunctions
substantially equal educational opportunity for all
92XX(C)2EncroachmentonLegislature
publicschoolchildren,stateactiondoctrinewasnot
92k2499ParticularIssuesandApplica-
defense to children's claims of constitutional
tions
deprivation; state had ample notice of ongoing
92k2508 k. Education. Most Cited
trends toward racial and ethnic isolation in its pub-
Cases
licschoolsandfactthatlegislaturedidnotaffirmat-
(Formerly92k70.1(7.1))
ivelycreateorintendtocreateconditionsthatledto
Precedents compelled conclusion that balance
racial and ethnic isolation did not, in and of itself,
would be struck in favor of justiciability of public
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page3
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
relieve state officials of their obligation to provide substantially equal educational opportunity and re-
children with more effective remedy for their con- quires state to take further remedial measures.
stitutional grievances. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§20;Art.8,§1.
20;Art.8,§1.
[10]ConstitutionalLaw92 598
[7]Schools345 148(1)
92ConstitutionalLaw
345Schools 92V Construction and Operation of Constitu-
345IIPublicSchools tionalProvisions
345II(L)Pupils 92V(A)GeneralRulesofConstruction
345k148NatureofRighttoInstructionin 92k595IntrinsicAidstoConstruction
General 92k598 k. Giving Effect to Every
345k148(1) k. In General. Most Cited Word.MostCitedCases
Cases (Formerly92k15)
State has affirmative constitutional obligation to
ConstitutionalLaw92 599
provideallpublicschoolchildrenwithsubstantially
equaleducationalopportunity.C.G.S.A.Const.Art.
92ConstitutionalLaw
1,§§1,20;Art.8,§1.
92V Construction and Operation of Constitu-
tionalProvisions
[8]Schools345 148(1)
92V(A)GeneralRulesofConstruction
345Schools 92k595IntrinsicAidstoConstruction
345IIPublicSchools 92k599 k. Giving Effect to Entire In-
345II(L)Pupils strument.MostCitedCases
345k148NatureofRighttoInstructionin (Formerly92k15)
General Fundamental principles of constitutional interpreta-
345k148(1) k. In General. Most Cited tion require that effect must be given to every part
Cases ofandeachwordinconstitution.
Any infringement of state's affirmative constitu-
[11]ConstitutionalLaw92 3006
tional obligation to provide all public school chil-
dren with substantially equal educational opportun-
92ConstitutionalLaw
ity must be strictly scrutinized. C.G.S.A. Const.
92XXVIEqualProtection
Art.1,§§1,20;Art.8,§1.
92XXVI(A)InGeneral
92XXVI(A)2RelationshiptoSimilarPro-
[9]Schools345 13(2)
visions
345Schools 92k3006 k. Federal/State Cognates.
345IIPublicSchools MostCitedCases
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and (Formerly92k215)
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral Insofar as Connecticut Constitution's equal protec-
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial tion clause, providing right to protection from se-
Groups gregation, differs textually from federal equal pro-
345k13(2) k. Existence and Propriety tection clause, its judicial construction must reflect
ofSegregatedSystem.MostCitedCases such textual distinction. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
Existence of extreme racial and ethnic isolation in 14;C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§20.
public school system deprives school children of
[12]Schools345 13(5)
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page4
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
345Schools 345k13(18)Actions
345IIPublicSchools 345k13(18.1) k. In General. Most
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and CitedCases
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral Public school children's pleadings, with respect to
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial counts alleging per se claim that they suffered from
Groups unconstitutional segregation and that disparities in
345k13(5) k. De Facto or De Jure Se- racialandethniccompositionofcity'spublicschool
gregation.MostCitedCases as compared with schools in surrounding school
Legislature is required to take affirmative respons- districts violated their constitutional rights, stated
ibility to remedy segregation in public schools, re- claim for deprivation of substantially equal educa-
gardless of whether that segregation has occurred tional opportunity; Supreme Court would be remiss
de jure or de facto; term segregation in Connecticut in exercise of constitutional obligation to provide
constitutional article providing right to protection remedybyduecourseoflawwithoutdelayifitwas
from segregation is neutral regarding segregative to deprive children of remedy solely because, as
intent and in context of public education, in which pleading matter, their claims were stated in two
state has affirmative obligation to monitor and counts rather than combined in one count of school
equalize educational opportunity, state's awareness segregation. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, 10, 20;
of existing and increasing severe racial and ethnic Art.8,§1.
isolation imposes upon state responsibility to rem-
[15]Schools345 13(18.1)
edy segregation because of race or ancestry.
C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§20;Art.8,§1.
345Schools
345IIPublicSchools
[13]Schools345 13(4)
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
345Schools Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
345IIPublicSchools 345k13 Separate Schools for Racial
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and Groups
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral 345k13(18)Actions
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial 345k13(18.1) k. In General. Most
Groups CitedCases
345k13(4)k.DesegregationandInteg- Public school children's pleadings, with respect to
ration and Duty to Desegregate in General. Most count alleging that state officials had failed to
CitedCases provide children in city public school system with
Elimination of racial isolation in public school pro- educational resources necessary to obtain minim-
motes attainment of equal educational opportunity ally adequate education, failed to implicate consti-
and is beneficial to all students of all races. tutional right to substantially equal educational op-
C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§20;Art.8,§1. portunity; claim was not expressly predicated upon
severe racial and ethnic isolation that existed in
[14]Schools345 13(18.1)
school system and, moreover, children conceded
that they had never claimed that opportunity to par-
345Schools
ticipate in racially and ethnically diverse education
345IIPublicSchools
was constitutionally required component of minim-
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
ally adequate education. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §§
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
1,20;Art.8,§1.
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial
Groups
[16]Schools345 148(1)
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page5
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
345Schools come higher in future and, moreover, state officials
345IIPublicSchools failed to contest that disparities in racial and ethnic
345II(L)Pupils composition was more than de minimus. C.G.S.A.
345k148NatureofRighttoInstructionin Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, 20; Art. 8, § 1; C.G.S.A. §§
General 10-184,10-240.
345k148(1) k. In General. Most Cited
[18]ConstitutionalLaw92 3076
Cases
When scrutinizing legislation that allegedly in-
92ConstitutionalLaw
fringes upon fundamental right to education, three-
92XXVIEqualProtection
step process applies: plaintiffs must first make
92XXVI(A)InGeneral
prima facie showing that disparities are more than
92XXVI(A)6LevelsofScrutiny
deminimisinthatdisparitiescontinuetojeopardize
92k3069ParticularClasses
plaintiffs' fundamental right to education, then bur-
92k3076 k. Poverty; Indigents and
den shifts to state to justify these disparities as in-
theHomeless.MostCitedCases
cident to advancement of legitimate state policy,
(Formerly92k213.1(1))
and if state's justification is acceptable, state must
Poverty is not suspect classification, for equal pro-
further demonstrate that continuing disparities are
tection purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14;
nevertheless not so great as to be unconstitutional.
C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§20.
C.G.S.A.Const.Art.1,§§1,20;Art.8,§1.
[19]Schools345 13(4)
[17]Schools345 13(2)
345Schools
345Schools
345IIPublicSchools
345IIPublicSchools
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial
Groups
Groups
345k13(4)k.DesegregationandInteg-
345k13(2) k. Existence and Propriety
ration and Duty to Desegregate in General. Most
ofSegregatedSystem.MostCitedCases
CitedCases
Public school children established prima facie
State officials justified disparities in racial and eth-
showing that disparities in racial and ethnic com-
nic composition of city public schools and sur-
position of city public schools and surrounding
rounding communities, a result of current school
communities, a result of current school assignment
assignment scheme principally embodied in school
scheme principally embodied in school districting
districting and attendance statutes, as incident to
andattendancestatutes,weremorethandeminimus
advancement of legitimate state policies of improv-
and jeopardized children's fundamental right to
ing educational quality for all Connecticut school
education; while children from minority groups
children by increasing state involvement in all as-
constituted 25.7% of statewide public school popu-
pects of public elementary and secondary educa-
lation in 1991-92 school year, 92.4% of children in
tion, permitting considerable local control and ac-
city public school system were members of minor-
countability in educational matters and addressing
ity groups, in 1994-95 school year 94.5% children
adverse consequences of racial and ethnic discrim-
in city public schools were minorities, city public
ination. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, 20; Art. 8, §
school system enrolls highest percentage of minor-
1;C.G.S.A.§§10-184,10-226aetseq.,10-240.
ity students in state, and percentage is likely to be-
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page6
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
[20]Schools345 13(2) constitutional, further judicial intervention would
be stayed to afford General Assembly opportunity
345Schools
to take appropriate legislative action. C.G.S.A.
345IIPublicSchools
Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, 20; Art. 8, § 1; C.G.S.A. §§
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
10-184,10-240.
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial **1270*2 Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom
Groups were John Brittain, Martha Stone, Hartford, Philip
345k13(2) k. Existence and Propriety D. Tegeler, Dennis D. Parker, New York City, pro
ofSegregatedSystem.MostCitedCases hacvice,and,onthebrief,SandraDelValle,Hemp-
Although state officials justified continuing dispar- stead, NY, pro hac vice, Kenneth Kimerling, New
ities in racial and ethnic composition of city public YorkCity,prohacvice,WilfredRodriguez,Brook-
schoolsandsurroundingcommunitiesasincidentto lyn, NY, Christopher A. Hansen, Towson, MD, pro
advancement of legitimate state policy, officials hac vice, Theodore M. Shaw, pro hac vice, and
failed to establish that disparities were nevertheless Marianne L. Engelman, Westport, pro hac vice, for
notsogreatastobeunconstitutionaland,therefore, appellants(plaintiffs).
school districting scheme, as codified in districting Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, with whom
and attendance statutes, was unconstitutional; in were Gregory T. D'Auria, Carolyn K. Querijero,
1991-92 school year over 92% of city public school Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., and Martha Watts
children were members of minority groups whereas Prestley, *3 Assistant Attorneys General, for ap-
during same period only seven of 21 surrounding pellees(defendants).
suburban towns had student minority enrollment Maurice T. FitzMaurice and Carolyn A. Magnan,
above 10% and trial court found and parties failed Hartford,filedabrief,fortheCityofHartfordetal.
to contest that despite efforts by state to alleviate asamicicuriae.
severe racial and ethnic isolation existing in city Kathryn Emmett, Jane W. Glander, Stamford, and
public school system, students in city schools were Elise Mayers Bouchner, Lafayette, LA, filed a
likely to become more isolated in future and single brief, for the Capitol Region Conference of
most important factor contributing to present con- Churchesetal.asamicicuriae.
centration of racial and ethnic minorities was David S. Golub and Jonathan M. Levine, Stamford,
school district system, codified in school districting filed a brief, for the Connecticut Legislative Black
statute. C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §§ 1, 20; Art. 8, § andPuertoRicanCaucusetal.asamicicuriae.
1;C.G.S.A.§§10-184,10-240. Martin Margulies, Bridgeport, filed a brief, for the
Society of American Law Teachers as amicus curi-
[21]Schools345 13(18.1)
ae.
Stephen C. Willey, Seattle, WA, pro hac vice, and
345Schools
Michael P. Koskoff, Bridgeport, filed a brief, for
345IIPublicSchools
the Connecticut Federation of School Administrat-
345II(A) Establishment, School Lands and
orsetal.asamicicuriae.
Funds,andRegulationinGeneral
345k13 Separate Schools for Racial
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN,
Groups
BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and
345k13(18)Actions
PALMER,JJ.
345k13(18.1) k. In General. Most
CitedCases
PETERS,ChiefJustice.
After holding that school districting scheme, as co-
The public elementary and high school students in
difiedindistrictingandattendancestatutes,wasun-
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page7
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
Hartford suffer daily from the devastating effects gion, race, color, ancestry, national ori-
that racial and ethnic isolation, as well as poverty, gin, sex or physical or mental disabil-
have had on their education. Federal constitutional ity.”
law provides no remedy for their plight. The prin-
I
cipal issue in this appeal is whether, under the
unique provisions of our state constitution, the
state, which already plays an active role in man-
THEHISTORYANDFACTUALBACKGROUND
aging public schools, must take further measures to
OFTHISLITIGATION
relieve the severe handicaps that burden these chil-
dren'seducation.Theissueisascontroversialasthe
stakes are high. We hold today that the needy In their action seeking a declaratory judgment and
FN3
schoolchildren of Hartford have waited long injunctive relief, the eighteen plaintiffs filed a
enough.Theconstitutionalimperativescontainedin fourcountcomplaintinwhichtheyclaimedthatthe
articleeighth,§1,FN1andarticlefirst,§§1and20, defendants FN4 had a constitutional obligation, un-
FN2 of our *4 state constitution entitle**1271 the der article *5 eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and
plaintiffs to relief. At the same time, the constitu- 20, to remedy alleged educational inequities in the
tional imperative of separation of powers persuades Hartford public schools. The trial court denied the
us to afford the legislature, with the assistance of defendants' motions to strike the complaint and for
the executive branch, the opportunity, in the first summary judgment. After an evidentiary hearing,
instance, to fashion the remedy that will most ap- the court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs
propriately respond to the constitutional violations had failed to prove that “state action exists under
that we have identified. The judgment of the trial the facts and circumstances of this case,” and
courtmust,accordingly,bereversed. renderedjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants.
FN1. The constitution of Connecticut, art- FN3. The eighteen plaintiffs are: Milo
icle eighth, § 1, provides: “There shall al- Sheff, an African-American child residing
ways be free public elementary and sec- in Hartford; Wildalize Bermudez, a Latino
ondaryschoolsinthestate.Thegeneralas- child residing in Hartford; Pedro Ber-
sembly shall implement this principle by mudez, a Latino child residing in Hartford;
appropriatelegislation.” Eva Bermudez, a Latino child residing in
Hartford; Oskar M. Melendez, a Latino
FN2. The constitution of Connecticut, art- child residing in Glastonbury; Waleska
icle first, § 1, provides: “All men when Melendez, a Latino child residing in Gla-
they form a social compact, are equal in stonbury; Martin Hamilton, an African-
rights; and no man or set of men are en- American child residing in Hartford; Jan-
titled to exclusive public emoluments or elle Hughley, an African-American child
privilegesfromthecommunity.” residing in Hartford; Neiima Best, an
African-American child residing in Hart-
The constitution of Connecticut, article
ford;LisaLaboy,aLatinochildresidingin
first, § 20, as amended by articles five
Hartford; David William Harrington, a
and twenty-one of the amendments,
white child residing in Hartford; Michael
provides: “No person shall be denied the
Joseph Harrington, a white child residing
equal protection of the law nor be sub-
in Hartford; Rachel Leach, a white child
jectedtosegregationordiscriminationin
residing in West Hartford; Joseph Leach, a
the exercise or enjoyment of his or her
white child residing in West Hartford;
civil or political rights because of reli-
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page8
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
Erica Connolly, a white child residing in thus have deprived the plaintiffs of an equal oppor-
Hartford; Tasha Connolly, a white child tunity to a free public education as required by art-
residing in Hartford; Michael Perez, a iclefirst,§§1and20,andarticleeighth,§1.Count
Latino child residing in Hartford; and twoallegesthatthedefendantshaveperpetuatedthe
Dawn Perez, a Latino child residing in racial and ethnic segregation that exists between
Hartford. Hartford and the surrounding suburban public
schooldistricts,andthushavediscriminatedagainst
FN4. The defendants are: William O'Neill
the plaintiffs and have failed to provide them with
or his successor as the governor of the
an equal opportunity to a free public education as
state of Connecticut; the state board of
required by article first, §§ 1 and *6 20, and article
education of the state of Connecticut; Ab-
eighth, § 1. Count three alleges that the defendants
raham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, War-
have failed to provide the plaintiffs with an equal
ren J. Foley, Rita Hendel, John Mannix
opportunity to a free public education as required
and Julia Rankin or their successor mem-
by article first, §§ 1 and 20, and article eighth, § 1,
bersofthestateboardofeducation;Gerald
becausethedefendantshavemaintainedinHartford
N. Tirozzi or his successor as the commis-
a public school district that, by comparison with
sioner of education for the state of Con-
surrounding suburban public school districts: (1) is
necticut; Francis L. Borges or his suc-
severely**1272 educationally disadvantaged; (2)
cessor as the treasurer of the state of Con-
fails to provide equal educational opportunities for
necticut; and J. Edward Caldwell or his
Hartford schoolchildren; and (3) fails to provide a
successor as the comptroller of the state of
minimally adequate education for Hartford school-
Connecticut.
children. Count four alleges that the defendants
have failed to provide the plaintiffs with a substan-
Theplaintiffsexpresslydisavowedattri-
tially equal educational opportunity as required by
al any claim that their constitutional
Connecticut law, including General Statutes §
rights had been violated by any acts or FN5
10-4a, in violation of the plaintiffs' rights to
omissions on the part of the city of Hart- FN6
dueprocessunderarticlefirst,§§8and10.
ford or its board of education, or on the
part of the twenty-one surrounding sub-
FN5. General Statutes § 10-4a provides:
urbantownsortheirboardsofeducation.
“Educational interests of state identified.
For purposes of sections 10-4, 10-4b and
A
10-220, the educational interests of the
state shall include, but not be limited to,
The plaintiffs' revised four count complaint alleges
the concern of the state (1) that each child
that students in the Hartford public schools are
shall have for the period prescribed in the
burdened by severe educational disadvantages
general statutes equal opportunity to re-
arising out of their racial and ethnic isolation and
ceiveasuitableprogramofeducationalex-
their socioeconomic deprivation. Seeking declarat-
periences;(2)thateachschooldistrictshall
ory and injunctive relief, each count of their com-
finance at a reasonable level at least equal
plaint is grounded on the proposition that the de-
to the minimum expenditure requirement
fendants have failed to fulfill their state constitu-
pursuant to the provisions of section
tional responsibility to remedy these severe educa-
10-262j an educational program designed
tional disadvantages. Count one alleges that the de-
to achieve this end; and (3) that the man-
fendants bear responsibility for the de facto racial
dates in the general statutes pertaining to
and ethnic segregation between Hartford and the
education within the jurisdiction of the
surrounding suburban public school districts and
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page9
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
State Board of Education be implemen- B
ted.”
Because of the importance of the novel and contro-
FN6. The constitution of Connecticut, art- versial questions of constitutional law raised in this
icle first, § 8, as amended by article seven- litigation, pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and
teen of the amendments, provides in relev- General Statutes § 51-199(c), we transferred to this
ant part: “No person shall be compelled to court the plaintiffs' appeal from the judgment of the
give evidence against himself, nor be de- trial court. Noting that the plaintiffs' complaint had
prived of life, liberty or property without beenpendingsince1989,weheldaspecialhearing,
dueprocessoflaw....” shortlyaftertheappealhadbeenfiled,toordersup-
plementation of the trial record. We directed the
The constitution of Connecticut, article
parties to prepare a joint stipulation of all relevant
first, § 10, provides: “All courts shall be
undisputed facts and to assist the trial court in mak-
open, and every person, for an injury
ing findings of fact on matters upon which the
done to him in his person, property or FN7
parties could not agree. Our resolution of this
reputation, shall have remedy by due
appeal has proceeded on the basis of this supple-
course of law, and right and justice ad-
mented,*8 record which the parties and the court
ministeredwithoutsale,denialordelay.”
promptlypreparedinaccordancewithourorder.
The defendants not only denied the underlying fac-
FN7. We express herewith our sincere ap-
tual and legal premises of the plaintiffs' complaint,
preciation to all counsel for the diligence
but also raised seven special defenses. These de-
andtheexpeditionwithwhichtheyrespon-
fenses alleged that the defendants were not liable
ded to this court's request. Their profes-
because of: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) stare decis-
sionalismistobecommended.
is; (3) separation of powers; (4) the lack of a justi-
ciable controversy; (5) *7 the plaintiffs' failure to Wealsoexpressherewithoursincereap-
join necessary parties, including the city of Hart- preciation to the trial court for the dili-
ford; (6) the absence of state action; and (7) the un- genceandtheexpeditionwithwhichthat
availabilityofcourt-orderedremedies. courtrespondedtothiscourt'srequest.
The trial court initially denied the defendants' mo- C
tions to strike and for summary judgment that were
The stipulation of the parties and the trial court's
premised on these special defenses. After an evid-
findings establish the following relevant facts.
entiaryhearing,however,thecourtruledinfavorof
Statewide, in the 1991-92 school year, children
the defendants on their sixth special defense. Rely-
from minority groups constituted 25.7 percent of
ingheavilyonprinciplesdrawnfromfederalconsti-
the public school population. In the Hartford public
tutional law, the court determined that the plaintiffs
school system in that same period, 92.4 percent of
could not prevail without establishing that state ac-
the students were members of minority groups, in-
tion was the “direct and sufficient cause of the con-
cluding,**1273 predominantly, students who were
ditions” alleged in their complaint, and concluded
FN8
either African-American or Latino. Fourteen
that they had failed to prove such causation. Find-
of Hartford's twenty-five elementary schools had a
ing no such state action, the court rendered judg-
whitestudentenrollmentoflessthan2percent.The
ment for the defendants without addressing the
Hartford public school system currently enrolls the
merits of the constitutional claims asserted by the
highest percentage of minority students in the state.
plaintiffs.
In the future, if current conditions continue, the
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.
678A.2d1267 Page10
238Conn.1,678A.2d1267,111Ed.LawRep.360
FN9
percentage of minority students in the Hartford see General Statutes § 10-240; the public
public school system is likely to increase rather schooldistrictboundariesinHartfordhavebeenco-
than decrease. Since 1980, the percentage of Afric- terminous with the boundaries of the city of Hart-
an-Americans in the Hartford student population ford.Sinceatleast1909,asaresultofanotherstate
FN10
has decreased, while the percentage of Latinos has statute; see General Statutes § 10-184;
increased. Although enrollment of African-Amer- schoolchildren*10havebeenassignedtothepublic
icanstudentsinthetwenty-onesurroundingsuburb- schooldistrictinwhichtheyreside.
an towns has increased by more than 60 percent
FN9. General Statutes § 10-240 provides:
from 1980 to 1992, only seven of these school dis-
“Control of schools. Each town shall
trictshadaminoritystudentenrollmentinexcessof
throughitsboardofeducationmaintainthe
10 percent in 1992. Because of the negative con-
control of all the public schools within its
sequences of racial and ethnic isolation, a more in-
limits and for this purpose shall be a
tegratedpublicschoolsystemwouldlikelybebene-
school district and shall have all the
ficialtoallschoolchildren.
powers and duties of school districts, ex-
FN8. We use the terms cept so far as such powers and duties are
“African-American” and “Latino” because inconsistent with the provisions of this
they are the terms that the parties used in chapter.”
theirrelevantstipulationsoffact.
FN10. General Statutes § 10-184 provides:
Amajorityofthechildrenwhoconstitutethepublic “Duties of parents. All parents and those
school population in Hartford come from homes who have the care of children shall bring
that are economically disadvantaged, that are them up in some lawful and honest em-
headed by a single parent and in which a language ployment and instruct them or cause them
other than English is spoken. The percentage of to be instructed in reading, writing,
Hartford schoolchildren *9 at the elementary level spelling, English grammar, geography,
whoreturntothesameschoolthattheyattendedthe arithmetic and United States history and in
previous year is the lowest such percentage in the citizenship, including a study of the town,
state. Such socioeconomic factors impair a child's state and federal governments. Each parent
orientation toward and skill in learning and ad- or other person having control of a child
verselyaffectachild'sperformanceonstandardized seven years of age and over and under six-
tests. The gap in the socioeconomic status between teen years of age shall cause such child to
Hartford schoolchildren and schoolchildren from attend a public day school regularly during
the surrounding twenty-one suburban towns has the hours and terms the public school in
been increasing. The performance of Hartford the district wherein such child resides is in
schoolchildren on standardized tests falls signific- session, or while the school is in session in
antly below that of schoolchildren from the twenty- which provision for the instruction of such
onesurroundingsuburbantowns. child is made according to law, unless the
parent or person having control of such
Directly or indirectly, the state has always con-
child is able to show that the child is else-
trolled public elementary and secondary education
where receiving equivalent instruction in
inConnecticut.Thelegislaturedirectsmanyaspects
thestudiestaughtinthepublicschools.”
of local school programs, including courses of
study and curricula, standardized testing, bilingual Thelegislatureprovidessubstantialsupporttocom-
education, graduation requirements and school at- munities throughout the state to finance public
tendance. Since 1941, as a result of a state statute; school operations. State financial aid is distributed
©2008ThomsonReuters/West.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.