School funding case grinds on

BOISE – A group of school districts won a round Thursday in an unusual federal lawsuit against Idaho Supreme Court justices.

Sparking the federal lawsuit: The justices declared Idaho’s school funding system unconstitutional, but then failed to do anything about it.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill rejected a motion from the justices to dismiss the case. He said the justices should “meet and confer” with the districts – and said if they don’t, the districts can continue with their federal lawsuit against the justices.

“We are as pleased as a possum in a pea patch with the judge’s decision,” said attorney Robert Huntley.

Huntley, a former Idaho Supreme Court Justice, is representing a group of school districts and students that filed suit against the state more than a decade ago over school funding. The case went to the Idaho Supreme Court five times, each time coming out in the school districts’ favor. But the state repeatedly appealed and at one point tried to pass a law to cancel the suit. That was overturned in court as unconstitutional.

Finally, the Idaho Supreme Court declared Idaho’s system for funding school construction unconstitutional because it leaves poor school districts unable to provide safe school buildings for kids. The high court retained jurisdiction and directed the Idaho Legislature to change the system, which now relies mostly on voter-approved local property tax increases to fund school construction.

After the 2006 legislative session, both sides presented arguments to the court about that year’s legislative action. While the state argued that lawmakers had improved the system, the districts argued that they’d actually worsened the situation. But the Supreme Court never considered those arguments and instead simply declared the case closed.

Lawyers for the justices attempted to have the federal case dismissed on the grounds that lower level federal courts can’t review state Supreme Court decisions – only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. But Winmill ruled that only applies to losing parties seeking to overturn state Supreme Court decisions.

“In fact, Plaintiffs are not the state-court losers,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs prevailed on both the lower court level and on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court with respect to their claim that the current school funding system in Idaho is insufficient to carry out the legislature’s duty under the Idaho Constitution.”

Winmill wrote that the evidence in the case left the court with a series of questions, including whether “the Idaho Supreme Court expressly refused to provide Plaintiffs with a remedy by closing the appeal, but retaining jurisdiction.” If so, he wrote, that “would appear to create a due process violation.”

The judge denied both a motion from the justices to dismiss the case, and a motion for summary judgment from Huntley, and instead said the case can move forward in federal court with motions and discovery.

Merlyn Clark, attorney for the five Idaho Supreme Court justices – only two of whom still serve on the court – said he was “perplexed” by the ruling.

“We’re going to do what we’re told,” he said. But he said he’s not sure whether the current Supreme Court has authority to conduct further proceedings in a case previous justices declared closed.

“I can’t find … where any court has ever been faced with this situation before for guidance,” Clark said. “We understand that we have to find an answer. We’re not sure what it will be.”