For 17 years, the Idaho Legislature has fended off its constitutional duty to provide children in certain school districts a safe environment for learning. In 1990, 22 school districts filed a lawsuit, noting the lack of financial help to upgrade deteriorating, potentially hazardous schools. The districts included Post Falls, Bonner County School District 82, Boundary County and St. Maries.

The courts repeatedly ruled against the foot-dragging schemes of legislators, who would then regroup and find a different way out of the commitment. Lawmakers ignored their own 1991 study showing that $700 million was needed. They even passed legislation – later deemed unconstitutional – to nullify the lawsuit.

Two years ago, it looked like the issue was finally settled when the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that the state’s bonding system for school construction was unconstitutional. At the time, we noted in this space that the Legislature had “no wiggle room left.”

Obviously, we underestimated the Legislature’s intransigence and overestimated the Supreme Court’s backbone. So now it’s a federal case – and a rather strange one.

The school districts are now suing Idaho Supreme Court justices for not enforcing their ruling or addressing questions that have stemmed from it. Indeed, after the 2006 legislative session, both sides submitted arguments to the court on whether purported remedies met constitutional muster. The court refused to consider the information, saying, in essence, “Our work is done here.”

It is certainly preferable for the Legislature to determine the remedy, but given its historic inaction we can understand why the districts might want a second opinion.

Is the legislative fix constitutional? What’s the point in having a state constitution if the Supreme Court isn’t going to enforce its rulings? And, finally, isn’t the court’s inaction an incentive for the Legislature to ignore it and the constitution on other matters?

At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill called the case “odd,” but he did seem troubled. “We’ve got a problem that I think is a result of a lack of clarity in the Supreme Court about what they were doing in this case.”

The problem stems from the court’s virtual “no comment” when clarity or enforcement is sought. As long as that remains the case, school districts and the students will have lost, even though they won.