University of Miami Law Review
Abstract
In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which held there was no fundamental right to education under the United States Constitution. In the years that have followed Rodriguez, state courts across the country have been left to decide issues related to public school financing. Many plaintiffs in these cases will argue that education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and that their respective state’s public school financing structure—one that heavily relies on local property taxes—is unconstitutional because of the discrepancies in the quality of education one will receive in a low poverty versus high poverty school district. Unfortunately, courts across the country frequently reach different and inconsistent conclusions regarding whether education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and whether this issue is justiciable.
Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court had to address the issue of adequate public school financing in Shea v. State. While this court held that the issue of public school financing was a nonjusticiable political question, the highest courts in other states have held the opposite. This Comment argues that the court in Shea reached the incorrect conclusion and that the issue of public school financing is justiciable. Additionally, this Comment discusses how, in its holding, the Shea court ignored the fundamental right to education that the Nevada Constitution provides.
Recommended Citation
Corinne Milnamow,
Inconsistencies in State Court Decisions Regarding Public School Financing Are Violating the Constitutional Rights of Citizens: Why the Nevada Court in Shea v. State Should Have Intervened,
78 U. Mia. L. Rev.
227
(2023)
Available at:
https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol78/iss1/7
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons