Horton v. Meskill
376 A.2d 359, 172 Conn. 615, 1977 Conn. LEXIS 938 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Connecticut Constitution, education is a fundamental right. A public school financing system that relies primarily on local property taxes, resulting in significant disparities in educational opportunities based on the wealth of the town, violates the state's constitutional guarantees of equal protection and free public education.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Horton, Barnhart, and Grace were public school students in the town of Canton, Connecticut.
- Connecticut's public school system was financed primarily through local property taxes, with supplemental state funds distributed as a flat grant per pupil.
- Significant disparities existed in the value of taxable property per pupil among Connecticut towns; for the 1972-73 school year, the range was from approximately $20,000 to $170,000 per pupil.
- The town of Canton was a 'property-poor' town with taxable property per pupil of $38,415, well below the state average of $53,639.
- Taxpayers in property-poor towns like Canton paid higher tax rates for education (a 'net school mill rate' of 21.9) than taxpayers in property-rich towns like Greenwich (a rate of 7.0).
- Despite higher tax efforts, property-poor towns generated substantially lower per-pupil operating expenditures ($945 in Canton) compared to property-rich towns ($1,428 in Greenwich).
- These funding disparities resulted in property-rich towns being able to provide a substantially wider range and higher quality of educational services, including more course offerings, better library resources, and higher teacher salaries.
Procedural Posture:
- Students from the town of Canton and their parents sued state and local officials in the Connecticut Superior Court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the state's system of financing public education violated the Connecticut and United States constitutions.
- The Superior Court held that the financing system violated the Connecticut Constitution's equal rights, equal protection, and education clauses.
- The Superior Court also held that the financing system did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- The defendant state officials appealed the ruling on the state constitution to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
- The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal on the ruling regarding the U.S. Constitution.
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 Connecticut's system of financing public elementary and secondary education, which relies heavily on local property taxes and results in wide disparities in per-pupil expenditures between towns, violate the equal protection and education clauses of the Connecticut Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - House, C. J.
Yes. Connecticut's system of financing public education violates the state constitution because education is a fundamental right under the Connecticut Constitution, and the financing system, which causes substantial disparities in educational quality based on town wealth, cannot withstand strict judicial scrutiny. The court determined that article eighth, section 1 of the state constitution, which mandates free public schools, elevates education to a fundamental right. The state's financing method, delegating the duty to raise funds to towns of disparate financial capability without significant equalization, results in a system where educational quality is a function of wealth. This system is not 'appropriate legislation' to fulfill the state’s duty to provide a substantially equal educational opportunity and thus violates the state constitution's education and equal protection clauses, irrespective of the U.S. Supreme Court's contrary holding regarding the federal constitution in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
Dissenting - Loiselle, J.
No. The financing system does not violate the state constitution because education is not a fundamental right that triggers strict judicial scrutiny. The constitutional provision for free schools was merely a codification of existing statutes and does not prevent the legislature from delegating fiscal responsibility to towns, a practice explicitly authorized by the constitution. The system, which combines local control with local fiscal responsibility, is a rational method for financing education. The plaintiffs' argument concerns only money, and there is no evidence that any child is denied a meaningful education or that expenditures above a reasonable minimum have a substantial effect on educational outcomes. The majority's decision will inevitably lead to total state financing and judicial overreach into legislative matters.
Concurring - Bogdanski, J.
Yes. The state constitution's education clause formalizes free public education as a fundamental right. The proceedings of the 1965 constitutional convention show a clear intent to place the right to free public education on par with the bill of rights. Education is the essence and foundation of a civilized culture, necessary for the protection and welfare of the state itself. The trial court's conclusions that the state's financing system unconstitutionally impinges upon this fundamental right are amply supported by the facts.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in school finance litigation, establishing education as a fundamental right under the Connecticut state constitution. By doing so, the court diverged from the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which found no such fundamental right under the federal constitution. This case exemplifies the principle of 'new federalism,' where state courts interpret their own constitutions to provide greater protections than those afforded by the U.S. Constitution. The ruling invalidates wealth-based disparities in educational funding and mandates that the state legislature create a more equitable system, setting a powerful precedent for similar challenges in other states.
