Mauricio v. Daugaard
2017 SD 22
S.D.2017Background
- In 2010 South Dakota joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to develop and adopt common K–12 assessments aligned with Common Core and later executed a 2014 Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement (MOUA) with the University of California to continue participation.
- The 2014 MOUA bound South Dakota to SBAC governance procedures, required annual membership fees, and provided SBAC "Products and Services" (assessment design, reporting, technical support).
- Plaintiffs Amber Mauricio and Shelli Grinager sued in 2015 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging SBAC is an interstate compact requiring congressional consent under the Compact Clause and that SBAC’s computer-adaptive assessments violate SDCL 13-3-55 (the statute requiring the "same assessment" annually).
- The circuit court treated motions as summary judgment matters and granted summary judgment for the State, holding SBAC did not require congressional approval and SBAC assessments did not violate SDCL 13-3-55.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, assuming arguendo the MOUA might constitute an interstate compact but holding it does not enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy; it also held "same assessment" does not require identical question sets and that computer-adaptive tests satisfy the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SBAC/MOUA is an interstate compact requiring Congress's consent (Compact Clause) | SBAC is an interstate compact (or at least an agreement involving California) that binds states and thus needs congressional approval | SBAC lacks classic compact indicia; states independently contracted with UC; compact does not enhance state power over federal supremacy | Assumed arguendo to be a compact but held it does not enhance state power quoad the national government, so no congressional consent required |
| Whether SBAC delegations bind state sovereignty or exercise sovereign power requiring approval | SBAC’s governing board can dictate policy and bind non-governing states, impairing state sovereignty | Governing Board provides assessment products/services, not curricular or sovereign policy; states voluntarily adopted Common Core and chose to contract | Held SBAC does not delegate sovereign policymaking that threatens federal supremacy; it provides assessments and services only |
| Whether federal statutes or DOE actions prohibit states from cooperating on common standards/assessments | Plaintiffs invoke federal provisions prohibiting federal control of education to argue states cannot regionalize or nationalize standards | Federal statutes limit federal control but do not bar states from voluntarily coordinating; education is a state power | Held federal law does not forbid interstate cooperation on standards/assessments; no federal supremacy impact shown |
| Whether SBAC’s computer-adaptive assessments violate SDCL 13-3-55’s "same assessment" requirement | "Same assessment" means identical test/questions for all students; adaptive tests differ per student and thus violate statute | "Same assessment" refers to the same kind/blueprint of assessment, not identical item sets; adaptive tests follow a common blueprint and measure progress | Held SBAC adaptive assessments comply with SDCL 13-3-55; statute does not require identical questions for all students |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (establishes historical Compact Clause purpose: prevent state combinations that threaten federal supremacy)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (reaffirms Compact Clause test and balance between state cooperation and federal supremacy)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S. 452 (compact analysis focuses on whether agreement enhances state power at expense of federal supremacy)
- Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159 (identifies "classic indicia" of compacts and cautions not every interstate arrangement is a Compact Clause violation)
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (recognizes education as a primary state function)