Coalition for Adequacy v. Chiles
1996 WL 350161, 680 So. 2d 400 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal challenge claiming the state has failed to make "adequate provision" for public schools under the Florida Constitution presents a non-justiciable political question. Without a judicially manageable standard for what constitutes "adequacy," courts cannot resolve such claims without violating the separation of powers by intruding upon the legislature's exclusive appropriations power.
Facts:
- A coalition of students, parents, school boards, and taxpayers (Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc., et al.) challenged the state's public school funding system.
- The Coalition alleged that students with special needs, including those learning English, economically deprived students, gifted children, and students with disabilities, were not receiving adequate educational programs.
- The Coalition claimed that students in counties with lower property tax revenues were not receiving an adequate education due to funding disparities.
- It was also alleged that the state failed to adequately provide for education capital outlay needs, such as school buildings and infrastructure.
- Finally, the Coalition asserted that the legislature had burdened school districts with noneducational and quasi-educational duties, making it impossible for them to perform their constitutional obligations with the funds provided.
Procedural Posture:
- The Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc., et al., filed a one-count complaint for declaratory relief in a Florida trial court against the Governor and other state officials.
- The complaint sought a declaration that the State had failed to allocate adequate resources for public schools as required by the Florida Constitution.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding the issue to be a non-justiciable political question.
- The Coalition appealed the dismissal to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The parties filed a joint suggestion, and the First District Court of Appeal certified the case to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public importance requiring immediate resolution.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to hear the appeal directly.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim that the Florida Legislature has failed to provide an 'adequate' level of funding for its public school system present a justiciable controversy that the courts can resolve without violating the separation of powers doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a claim that the Legislature has failed to provide an 'adequate' level of funding does not present a justiciable controversy. The issue is a non-justiciable political question because the Florida Constitution's mandate for an 'adequate provision' for schools lacks a textually demonstrable, manageable standard for courts to apply. Resolving such a claim would require the judiciary to make subjective value judgments about state spending priorities, thereby usurping the appropriations power exclusively reserved to the Legislature under the separation of powers doctrine. While courts can assess whether a school system is 'uniform,' determining whether it is 'adequate' in the abstract is beyond judicial competence.
Concurring - Overton, J.
No, but only because an insufficient showing was made in this specific case. While agreeing with the dismissal, the concurrence argues that the right to an adequate education is a fundamental right under the Florida Constitution and that the judiciary is not entirely precluded from enforcing it. A minimum threshold for adequacy exists, and a court could intervene without offending the separation of powers if a complaint demonstrated an extreme failure, such as a 30% illiteracy rate in a county. The judiciary's role is not completely foreclosed, but this case did not meet the high bar required for judicial intrusion.
Dissenting - Anstead, J.
Yes, the claim presents a justiciable controversy that the court should resolve. Dismissing the case without any factual inquiry reduces the constitutional promise of an adequate education to 'empty words' and is an abdication of judicial responsibility. The court has a duty to give meaning to the term 'adequate' and to hold the legislature accountable to its constitutional mandate, as courts in many other states have done. The dissent rejects the notion that the constitution mandates only a 'uniform' but inadequate system, arguing that the primary purpose of the education article is to ensure an adequate education for Florida's children.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that broad challenges to the overall 'adequacy' of state education funding in Florida are non-justiciable political questions. It sharply distinguishes the abstract concept of 'adequacy' from the more measurable standard of 'uniformity,' which remains a justiciable issue. The ruling solidifies judicial deference to the legislature in matters of appropriation and public policy where the constitution does not provide clear, manageable standards for review. Future litigants challenging education funding must frame their claims around more specific constitutional violations or demonstrate such an extreme and measurable failure of the system that it crosses a minimum constitutional threshold, as suggested by the concurrence.
