Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a key provision of California’s Proposition 13, a property-tax-limitation law. If this provision is deemed unconstitutional, it could disrupt the funding of local government in the state, including school districts. Kevin Gordon, the director of governmental affairs for the California School Boards Association, stated that it would completely reshape property taxes in California. The case, Nordlinger v. Hahn, focuses on the constitutionality of reassessing newly purchased property based on its purchase price. Stephanie Nordlinger, the plaintiff in the case, argues that this provision violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Nordlinger points out that she pays significantly higher property taxes than her neighbors who have owned similar homes since before Proposition 13. The challenge has been rejected by state courts, including the California Supreme Court. The school-boards group has not explicitly supported the challenge, as invalidating the property-tax system would require a political resolution by state lawmakers. The adoption of Proposition 13 initially limited the budgets of local government agencies, but the equalization of education funding by the state has alleviated some budgetary concerns for local educators.
In addition to the challenge to Proposition 13, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could impact state sales-tax revenues. The case, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, will address whether a precedent that prohibits state taxes on out-of-state mail-order sales should be overturned. North Dakota, supported by other states, argues that this precedent is outdated due to the growth of catalog and direct marketing, resulting in a loss of tax revenue. The states estimate an annual loss of at least $2.2 billion from mail-order and direct marketing sales.
The Supreme Court has also requested the Justice Department’s input on two Mississippi cases involving the federal Voting Rights Act and changes in school-district boundaries. One case, Greenville Public School District v. Western Line Consolidated School District, explores a dispute between two school districts over a Mississippi law that automatically changes district boundaries when a municipality annexes land served by another district. The Greenville district argues that the repeal of this law in 1986 was not adequately reviewed by the U.S. Attorney General as required under the Voting Rights Act. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected the Greenville district’s claim to land in the Western Line district, stating that the Attorney General’s objection was raised too late.
Cases Rejected
In other proceedings, the Supreme Court last week:
– Chose not to review two rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the obligation of two districts in Virginia to provide adequate education for deaf students.
– In the case of Goodall v. Stafford County School Board (No. 91-163), the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision that the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act does not mandate the provision of a cued-speech interpreter to a hearing-impaired student attending a private Christian school. Additionally, the appeals court further emphasized that placing a publicly-funded educator within a religious school would violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion.
– In Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board (No. 91-62), the Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that the district is not obligated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act to implement a cued-speech program at the local school attended by a hearing-impaired student. As a result, the district can continue requiring the student to commute to the one county school offering the specialized program, as stated by the lower court.
– Rejected a civil rights lawsuit filed against the president of the San Francisco Board of Education and the board itself, filed by an individual who had previously been sued for libel by the board president after criticizing board policy at a public meeting. The case was Jungherr v. San Francisco Unified School District (No. 90-1612).
– Allowed the dismissal of a recovery complaint filed by a Kentucky school board against a bonding company responsible for a building contractor that defaulted. This decision was made in Boyd County Board of Education v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (No. 90-1830).
– Declined to review a ruling by the Ohio Court of Appeals stating that a school board cannot be held liable under state law for the sexual assault of a handicapped student by a cab driver employed by a company under contract with the school district. The case was Jones v. Dayton Board of Education (No. 90-1982).
– Refused to examine a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that determined a school board’s decision to lay off a tenured psychometrist with only one professional certificate, while retaining non-tenured psychometrists with other certificates qualifying them for additional positions, did not violate state law or the board’s employment policies. This case was Stewart v. Fort Wayne Community Schools (No. 91-16).
