Sheff v. O'Neill
678 A.2d 1267, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 239, 238 Conn. 1 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Connecticut Constitution's education and equal protection clauses, the state has an affirmative obligation to remedy severe racial and ethnic segregation in its public schools, even if that segregation is de facto (unintentional) rather than de jure (intentional). The existence of extreme racial and ethnic isolation in public schools, caused by state-mandated districting, deprives schoolchildren of a substantially equal educational opportunity.
Facts:
- Public school students in Hartford, Connecticut, attended schools with high concentrations of racial and ethnic minority students.
- In the 1991-92 school year, Hartford's public schools were 92.4% minority, while the statewide public school population was 25.7% minority.
- Most of the 21 surrounding suburban school districts had minority student enrollments of less than 10%.
- The student population in Hartford was also predominantly from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and the performance of Hartford students on standardized tests was significantly lower than that of students in surrounding towns.
- A state statute first enacted in 1909 (General Statutes § 10-240) established that town boundaries were coterminous with public school district boundaries.
- A separate state statute (General Statutes § 10-184) required schoolchildren to attend public school in the district where they reside.
- These two statutes, while not enacted with segregative intent, were identified as the single most important factor contributing to the racial and ethnic concentration in Hartford schools.
- The racial and ethnic isolation of children in Hartford schools was found to be increasing over time.
Procedural Posture:
- Eighteen students from Hartford and surrounding suburbs (plaintiffs) sued the Governor and other state officials (defendants) in a Connecticut trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the state constitution's education and equal protection clauses.
- The defendants' motions to strike the complaint and for summary judgment were denied by the trial court.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the requisite 'state action' and rendered judgment for the defendants.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court, prior to deciding the appeal, ordered the trial record to be supplemented with a joint stipulation of undisputed facts and further trial court findings on disputed facts.
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 the state's maintenance of a public school districting system based on town boundaries, which results in severe de facto racial and ethnic segregation, violate the Connecticut Constitution's guarantee of a substantially equal educational opportunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, C. J.
Yes, the state's school districting system violates the Connecticut Constitution. The state constitution imposes an affirmative obligation to provide a substantially equal educational opportunity, and this duty is informed by the constitution's explicit prohibition against 'segregation.' Unlike federal law, which requires proof of intentional (de jure) discrimination, the state's failure to remedy severe, known de facto segregation resulting from its own statutes constitutes a breach of this affirmative duty. The statutes setting school district lines by town boundaries are the primary cause of this isolation, providing the necessary state action. The resulting extreme racial and ethnic isolation is inherently harmful to education and deprives students of their constitutional right, and the state's justification of preserving local control is insufficient to overcome this constitutional violation.
Dissenting - Borden, J.
No, the state's school districting system does not violate the Connecticut Constitution. The majority creates a new constitutional theory not argued by the parties and ignores the trial court's critical finding that poverty, not racial isolation, is the principal cause of lower educational achievement in Hartford. The term 'segregation' in the state constitution was intended by its framers in 1965 to prohibit only intentional, de jure segregation, not de facto segregation resulting from demographic patterns. By transforming a laudable educational policy (integration) into a constitutional mandate, the majority usurps the legislature's role and creates an unworkable standard that effectively invalidates the state's entire system of municipality-based school districts.
Concurring - Berdon, J.
Yes, the state's system is unconstitutional. I join the majority's opinion but write separately to emphasize that a racially and ethnically segregated educational environment also deprives schoolchildren of a minimally adequate education, which is a required component of the constitutional right. Citing principles from Brown v. Board of Education, segregation generates feelings of inferiority and retards educational development. An adequate education in a multicultural world must include social understanding and racial tolerance, which cannot be achieved in a segregated environment.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from federal equal protection jurisprudence, particularly Milliken v. Bradley, which generally requires a finding of intentional, de jure segregation to mandate interdistrict remedies. By interpreting its state constitution to impose an affirmative duty on the legislature to remedy de facto segregation, the Connecticut Supreme Court established a powerful precedent for education rights litigation. The ruling places the onus on the state government to actively dismantle systems that perpetuate racial isolation, even without discriminatory intent, potentially impacting school districting, funding, and student assignment policies statewide and serving as a model for similar challenges in other states with strong constitutional education clauses.
