H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, 205 A.3d 526

In 2015 the Vermont Legislature enacted Act 46 to encourage school-district mergers through a multiyear process and financial incentives, with the State Board of Education authorized to order mergers if districts did not act.
H. Brooke Paige, a Washington, VT resident, taxpayer, registered voter, and justice of the peace, opposed his town’s 2017 merger with Orange under Act 46 and filed administrative and then civil claims challenging the law and the merger.
Paige’s amended complaint claimed Act 46 (1) deprived Washington residents of local control and equal educational opportunities under the Vermont Constitution and Brigham, and (2) coerced voters in violation of state and federal election law; he sought declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
The trial court found Paige had taxpayer standing but dismissed his constitutional and election-law claims for failure to state a claim; it also upheld dismissal of the administrative complaint.
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding Paige lacked standing to bring the Education-Clause challenge (and noting other claims were waived on appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge Act 46 under Education Clause	Paige argued he (as resident/taxpayer/justice of the peace) will suffer financial injury and loss of local control from the merger	State argued Paige lacked a particularized injury traceable to Act 46 and thus lacked standing	Court held Paige lacked standing; his allegations were generalized and not a direct, personal injury
Taxpayer standing to challenge a state law	Paige alleged the merger would increase Washington’s education costs and taxes, giving him taxpayer standing	State argued Vermont taxpayers cannot sue over statewide legislation absent direct, particularized financial injury	Court held municipal‑taxpayer theory inapplicable; plaintiff did not allege direct, cognizable tax injury to confer standing
Standing as justice of the peace	Paige asserted his oath to uphold the Constitution gave him standing to sue to prevent constitutional injury	State argued the oath imposes no private right to litigate on behalf of the public	Court rejected the argument; the oath does not create standing absent a personal injury
Review of other claims (Common Benefits, Articles 8/18, election statutes, admin appeal)	Paige raised these below	State maintained deficiencies and lack of standing/merit	Court noted Paige did not press these issues on appeal and therefore waived them; decision limited to standing issue

Brigham v. State, 166 Vt. 246, 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997) (recognized equal‑educational‑opportunity principles asserted under Vermont Constitution)
Brigham v. State (Brigham II), 179 Vt. 525, 889 A.2d 715 (Vt. 2005) (discusses standing of students and taxpayers to challenge state education funding statute)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (federal standing requires particularized injury, causation, and redressability)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (state taxpayer allegations of generalized tax burdens insufficient for standing)
Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 726 A.2d 477 (Vt. 1998) (explains case‑or‑controversy and standing doctrine under Vermont law)
Sorge v. State, 171 Vt. 171, 762 A.2d 816 (Vt. 2000) (court may affirm lower court on grounds other than those relied on below)
Baird v. City of Burlington, 201 Vt. 112, 136 A.3d 223 (Vt. 2016) (municipal‑taxpayer standing requires direct loss or municipal asset waste)