293 A.3d 309
Vt.2023Background
- Plaintiffs are three sets of parents from Vermont school districts that maintain public schools for some grades and do not provide tuitioning to the independent or out-of-district public schools of the parents’ choice for all grades at the state’s expense.
- Vermont law permits each school district to (a) maintain public schools, (b) pay tuition for students to attend public or approved independent schools elsewhere, or (c) do both; tuitioning for high school may be authorized for students with unique needs.
- Plaintiffs filed a facial challenge alleging the statutory scheme violates the Vermont Constitution’s Education Clause and Common Benefits Clause by geographically denying school-choice tuition to some families.
- The civil division dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held: (1) the Education Clause does not create a fundamental right to tuition-funded parental choice; (2) an equal-educational-opportunity claim requires pleading that differential tuitioning causes substantial inequality in educational opportunities; and (3) Common Benefits claims must satisfy the Baker three-part pleading test. The dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Education Clause require the state to fund parental school choice (tuitioning) for all students? | Education Clause guarantees a fundamental right to attend the school of parents’ choice at state expense. | The Education Clause requires the state to provide education but not a particular method; it does not obligate universal tuitioning. | Held: No. Education Clause imposes a fundamental right to education but not an entitlement to state-funded tuition for parental choice. |
| Do differences in availability of tuitioning across districts violate equal educational opportunity (Brigham) ? | Denying tuition to children in districts that maintain a public school produces unequal educational opportunities. | Plaintiffs must show that the means (tuitioning differences) cause substantial inequality in educational opportunities; mere difference in choice is insufficient. | Held: Plaintiffs failed to plead that differential tuitioning causes substantial inequality; claim not stated. |
| Under the Common Benefits Clause, who bears the burden at pleading stage and what must be alleged? | State must justify on the record its exclusion of some families from tuitioning; burden shifts to state once claim is pleaded. | Plaintiffs bear the burden to allege facts satisfying the Baker test; statutes presumptively constitutional. | Held: Plaintiffs bear the pleading burden; they must allege the disadvantaged community, governmental purpose, and that exclusion is not reasonably related to that purpose. Burden does not shift to state at dismissal stage. |
| Were plaintiffs’ pleadings sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion? | Plaintiffs alleged personal harms and asserted facial discrimination; they argued factual development is usually required. | Complaint contained conclusory allegations and anecdotes insufficient under Baker and Brigham; dismissal appropriate. | Held: Dismissal affirmed. Complaint failed to plead a prima facie Common Benefits or equal-opportunity violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997) (establishes state obligation to provide education and standard of substantial equality of educational opportunity)
- Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (articulates three-part Common Benefits Clause test for exclusion from a state-conferred benefit)
- Mason v. Thetford Sch. Bd., 457 A.2d 647 (Vt. 1983) (no constitutional right to reimbursement to attend parent-chosen school)
- Badgley v. Walton, 10 A.3d 469 (Vt. 2010) (presumption of constitutionality and deference to legislative policy choices in Common Benefits analysis)
- State v. Vasseur, 260 A.3d 1126 (Vt. 2021) (requiring a factual link between alleged statutory means and educational opportunities for standing/merits)
- Boyd v. State, 275 A.3d 155 (Vt. 2022) (plaintiffs failed to show that increased funding would change educational outcomes; demonstrates need to connect causation)
- Athens Sch. Dist. v. Vt. State Bd. of Educ., 237 A.3d 671 (Vt. 2020) (reiterates presumption of constitutionality and limits on judicial reach)
- Wroblewski v. City of Washburn, 965 F.2d 452 (7th Cir. 1992) (pleading-stage analogy: plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to overcome presumptions that support governmental classifications)