555 F.Supp.3d 21
D. Vt.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (four minor students, their parents, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington) challenge denials of Town Tuition Program reimbursement to attend Rice Memorial High School, a Catholic school approved by the State Board of Education.
- Plaintiffs allege school boards denied tuition requests citing the Vermont Constitution's Compelled Support Clause and AOE guidance, and that Defendant Daniel French (Secretary of the Agency of Education) and AOE directed or encouraged such exclusions and failed to adopt "adequate safeguards" contemplated by Chittenden Town.
- Plaintiffs assert Free Exercise, Free Expression (Diocese), and Equal Protection claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; French moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
- The FAC alleges specific denials by multiple school boards (South Hero, CIUUSD, Georgia) and correspondence showing boards relied on AOE counsel/advice in denying requests for Rice tuition.
- The court accepts Plaintiffs' factual allegations at the pleading stage and finds they plausibly plead that AOE/French's guidance had a determinative effect on local boards' denials, so Plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue French.
- The court dismisses the Diocese's attempt to assert third-party standing for families not before the court but denies French's sovereign immunity argument under Ex parte Young as to prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to sue French (causation/redressability) | French/AOE directed and encouraged districts to exclude religious schools; AOE guidance had determinative effect on boards' denials | Boards, not the State, decide tuition; French's general supervisory role is insufficient to establish traceability | Denied dismissal — plaintiffs plausibly alleged AOE/French guidance had a determinative effect, satisfying traceability at pleading stage |
| Diocese's third-party standing to assert rights of potential students | Diocese may sue on behalf of families who wish to attend Rice but cannot without public tuition | Third parties (families) are available to sue themselves; no hindrance to their litigation | Granted dismissal — Diocese may not assert rights of third parties not before the court |
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity / Ex parte Young exception | Plaintiffs seek prospective relief to stop French from directing/encouraging exclusion of religious schools | French argues general enforcement duty is insufficient connection for Ex parte Young | Denied dismissal — FAC alleges specific advisory/enforcement connection sufficient at pleading stage to invoke Ex parte Young for prospective relief |
| Adequacy of pleadings re AOE's coercive/determinative effect | Allegations of AOE statements and prior guidance (pre- and post-Espinoza) show predictable impact on local boards' decisions | French points to districts that paid religious schools and argues lack of coercive enforcement by AOE | Court finds allegations sufficient at pleading stage; defendants may test standing later via evidence or summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Chittenden Town Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Educ., 738 A.2d 539 (Vt. 1999) (Vermont Compelled Support Clause requires "adequate safeguards" before public tuition can fund religious worship)
- Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) (federal precedent limiting state restrictions on public aid to religious schools)
- Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (government action that has coercive or determinative effect on third parties can satisfy traceability)
- Simon v. E. Kentucky Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (traceability and limits on standing when injury stems from independent third-party action)
- Dep't of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (standing theories requiring speculation about independent actors disfavored)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (Eleventh Amendment doctrine permitting prospective relief against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (distinguishing suits against states from suits seeking prospective relief to enjoin unconstitutional state action)