Kaleb Vasseur v. State of Vermont, 2021 VT 53

Plaintiff Kaleb Vasseur, an elementary-school student from Fayston, challenged Act 46’s provision allowing some consolidated school districts to allocate school-board seats and weight votes by town population rather than use at-large elections.
Vasseur alleged that this system leaves small/rural towns (like Fayston) underrepresented on the board, producing comparatively diminished educational opportunities for affected students.
The State moved to dismiss; the superior court dismissed for lack of constitutional standing, concluding plaintiff had not shown the State caused any injury.
Vasseur filed a second amended complaint asserting the State Board of Education caused the injury by approving the district’s formation with the challenged electoral scheme; he also sought leave to amend.
The superior court denied leave to amend as futile; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Vasseur failed to plead an injury in fact and therefore lacked standing.
The Court declined to consider a new allegation (raised first in a reply brief) that the district is exploring closure of Fayston Elementary, because it was not pleaded earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional standing — injury-in-fact	Vasseur: weighted-town voting produces unequal educational opportunities for Fayston students (concrete harm).	State: allegations describe a generalized grievance; no concrete, particularized injury alleged.	Held: Vasseur failed to allege an injury in fact; standing lacking.
Standing — causation	Vasseur: Board of Education approved the district electoral scheme, so the State caused the injury.	State: Act 46 and the Board do not compel any particular electoral method; no causal link.	Held: Court did not reach causation because plaintiff failed to allege injury; dismissal affirmed on alternative ground.
Motion to amend — futility	Vasseur: the second amended complaint cured the standing defect.	State: amendment still fails to plead standing; amendment would be futile.	Held: Denial of leave to amend affirmed as amendment would be futile.
New factual allegation (school closure) raised in reply	Vasseur: board is exploring closing Fayston Elementary, linking underrepresentation to concrete harm.	State: allegation was not pleaded and cannot be raised first in a reply; too late to cure standing.	Held: Court refused to consider the new allegation; issue waived and does not establish standing.

Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997) (recognizes fundamental right to education and equal educational opportunity under Vermont Constitution).
Wool v. Office of Prof'l Regulation, 236 A.3d 1250 (Vt. 2020) (standing requires pleading injury, causation, and redressability).
Parker v. Town of Milton, 726 A.2d 477 (Vt. 1998) (judicial power confined to actual cases/controversies; separation-of-powers limits).
Severson v. City of Burlington, 215 A.3d 102 (Vt. 2019) (pleading-stage rules: accept uncontroverted facts, reasonable inferences favor nonmoving party; plaintiff still must allege real injury).
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 955 A.2d 1082 (Vt. 2008) (leave to amend is liberally granted; reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Brod v. Agency of Nat. Res., 936 A.2d 1286 (Vt. 2007) (subject-matter jurisdiction limited to actual disputes).
Paige v. State, 205 A.3d 526 (Vt. 2018) (plaintiff must allege facts showing injury at pleading stage).
Prive v. Vermont Asbestos Group, 992 A.2d 1035 (Vt. 2010) (amendment is futile if amended complaint could not survive motion to dismiss).