San

Antonio

Independent

School

District v. Rodriguez Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 12, 1972 Decided March 21, 1973 u!! case name San Antonio "ndependent Schoo! District, et a!# $# Demetrio %# &odrigue', et a!# Citations (11 U#S# 1 )more* 93 S# Ct# 127+, 3- .# /d# 2d 1-, 1973 U#S# ./0"S 91 %rior histor1 2udgment for p!aintiffs, 337 # Supp# 2+3 )4#D# 5e6as )1971* Subse7uent histor1 &ehearing denied, (11 U#S# 989 )1973* 9o!ding &e!iance on propert1 ta6es to fund pub!ic schoo!s does not $io!ate the /7ua! %rotection C!ause e$en if it causes inter:district e6penditure disparities# Abso!ute e7ua!it1 of education funding is not re7uired and a state s1stem that encourages !oca! contro! o$er schoo!s bears a rationa! re!ationship to a !egitimate state interest# District Court of 5e6as re$ersed# Court membership Chief 2ustice 4arren /# ;urger Associate 2ustices 4i!!iam O# Doug!as < 4i!!iam 2# ;rennan, 2r# %otter Ste=art < ;1ron 4hite 5hurgood Marsha!! < 9arr1 ;!ac>mun .e=is # %o=e!!, 2r# < 4i!!iam &ehn7uist Case opinions Ma?orit1 %o=e!!, ?oined b1 ;urger, Ste=art, &ehn7uist, ;!ac>mun Dissent 4hite, ?oined b1 Doug!as, ;rennan Dissent Marsha!!, ?oined b1 Doug!as Dissent ;rennan .a=s app!ied U#S# Const# amend# 0"@

Background
5his !a=suit =as brought b1 members of the /dge=ood Concerned %arent Association representing their chi!dren and simi!ar!1 situated students# 5he suit =as fi!ed on 2une 33, 19-+ in the federa! district court for the 4estern District of 5e6as# "n the initia! comp!aint, the parents sued San Antonio "SD, A!amo 9eights "SD and fi$e other schoo! districts, the ;e6ar Count1 Schoo! 5rustees and the State of 5e6as

contending the 5e6as method of schoo! financing $io!ated the e7ua! protection c!ause of the ourteenth Amendment to the U# S# Constitution# 5he !a=suit a!!eged that education =as a fundamenta! right and that =ea!th:based discrimination in the pro$ision of education )e#g#, a fundamenta! right*, created in the poor, or those of !esser =ea!th, a constitutiona!!1 suspect c!ass, =ho =ere to be protected from the discrimination# /$entua!!1, the schoo! districts =ere dropped from the case !ea$ing on!1 the State of 5e6as as the defendant# 5he case ad$anced through the courts s1stem, pro$iding $ictor1 to the /dge=ood parents unti! it reached the Supreme Court in 1972# 5he schoo! districts in the San Antonio area, and genera!!1 in 5e6as, had a !ong histor1 of financia! ine7uit1# &odrigue' presented e$idence that schoo! districts in the =ea!th1, and primari!1 =hite, areas of to=n, most notab!1 the north: side A!amo 9eights "ndependent Schoo! District, =ere ab!e to contribute a much higher amount per chi!d than /dge=ood, =hich =as a poor minorit1 area# rom the tria! brief, Dr# 2ose Cardenas, Superintendent of Schoo!s, /dge=ood "ndependent Schoo! District testified to the prob!em in his affida$it, the fo!!o=ing informationA /dge=ood is a poor district =ith a !o= ta6 base# As a resu!t, its ad $a!orem ta6 re$enue fa!!s far short of the monies a$ai!ab!e in other ;e6ar Count1 schoo! districts# 4ith this ine7uitab!e financing of its schoo!s, /dge=ood cannot hire sufficient 7ua!ified personne!, nor pro$ide the ph1sica! faci!ities, !ibrar1 boo>s, e7uipment and supp!ies afforded b1 other ;e6ar Count1 Districts# 5o i!!ustrate, the /dge=ood residents are ma>ing a high ta6 effort, ha$e burdened themse!$es =ith one of the highest proportion of bonded indebtedness in the count1 to pa1 for capita! impro$ements and, ne$er, in the histor1 of the district ha$e the1 fai!ed to appro$e a bond issue# Cardenas cites a stud1, BA 5a!e of 5=o Districts that ma>es the fo!!o=ing comparisons in 19-7:-+ bet=een /dge=ood and the Corth /ast "ndependent Schoo! DistrictA C!assroom spaceA Corth /ast had 73#3- s7uare feet )-#837 m2* per student, /dge=ood had 83#( s7uare feet )(#-+ m2* per student .ibrar1 boo>sA Corth /ast had 9#(2 boo>s per student, /dge=ood had 3#9 boo>s per student 5eacherD%upi! &atioA Corth /astEs ratio =as 1D19, /dge=oodEs =as 1D2+ Counse!orD%upi! &atioA Corth /astEs =as 1D1,883 chi!dren, /dge=oodEs =as 1D8,-72 )the nearb1 A!amo 9eights district had a 1D1,319 ratio* Dropout rate, secondar1 studentsA Corth /astEs rate =as +F, /dge=oodEs =as 32F

"n fact, the financia! disparit1 bet=een /dge=ood and A!amo 9eights increased in the four 1ears it too> for &odrigue' to =or> its =a1 through the court s1stem, from a G313 tota! per:pupi! disparit1 in 19-+ in state and !oca! support bet=een the districts to a G3+9 disparit1 in 1972#

"n the Supreme Court, a ne= group of ?ustices had been appointed since the fi!ing of the case# 5he most significant ne= member =as 2ustice .e=is %o=e!!, =ho pro$ed to be the s=ing $ote in the &odrigue' case# %o=e!! !ed the 8:( ma?orit1 in deciding that education =as neither e6p!icit!1 or imp!icit!1 protected in the Constitution# 9e a!so found that 5e6as had not created a suspect c!ass re!ated to po$ert1# 5hese t=o findings a!!o=ed the state to continue its schoo! financing p!an as !ong so it =as rationa!!1 re!ated to a !egitimate state interest# 5he Court in its ana!1sis forec!osed for itse!f a 7uasi:constitutiona! amendment proposa! H ratification process in =hich the Court =ou!d post:hoc appro$e a !ong: estab!ished !egis!ati$e decision as creating a fundamenta! right sub?ect to the ourteenth Amendment Due %rocess C!ause# Citation# (11 U#S# 1, 93 S# Ct# 127+, 3- .# /d# 2d 1-, 1973 U#S# 91# ;rief act Summar1# "n 5e6as, pub!ic schoo!s =ere financed primari!1 through a s1stem =hereb1 propert1 ta6es =ere imposed b1 !oca! schoo! districts# ;ecause propert1 $a!ues =ere higher in some districts, than in others, substantia! disparities across districts in per pupi! spending arose# 5he disparities in spending among pub!ic schoo! chi!dren triggered a ourteenth Amendment /7ua! %rotection cha!!enge to the constitutiona!it1 of the s1stem# S1nopsis of &u!e of .a=# A State pub!ic schoo! ta6ing s1stem that resu!ts in interdistrict spending disparities among !oca! schoo! districts is consistent =ith the ourteenth Amendment /7ua! %rotection C!ause as !ong as the s1stem satisfies the rationa! basis standard of re$ie= and is, thus, rationa!!1 re!ated to a !egitimate go$ernmenta! interest#

Facts.
"n 5e6as, pub!ic schoo!s =ere financed primari!1 b1 means of propert1 ta6es imposed b1 !oca! schoo! districts# ;ecause propert1 $a!ues =ere higher in some districts, than in others, substantia! disparities across districts in per pupi! spending arose# or e6amp!e, one district raised G2- per pupi!, using a 1#38F ta6 rate, =hi!e another district raised as much as G333 per pupi! on the basis of a mere #+8F rate# 5he stated purpose for the s1stem =as to assure schoo! districts of !oca! fisca! contro!# At tria!, a edera! District Court, app!1ing the strict scrutin1 standard of re$ie=, in$a!idated the schoo! financing s1stem on e7ua! protection grounds# "ssue# Did the federa! District Court, in app!1ing strict scrutin1, re$ie= the case under the correct standard of re$ie=I 4as the funding s1stem rationa!!1 re!ated to a !egitimate go$ernmenta! interestI

Conclusion
DecisionA 8 $otes for San Antonio "ndependent Schoo! Dis#, ( $ote)s* against .ega! pro$isionA /7ua! %rotection Co# 5he Court refused to e6amine the s1stem =ith strict scrutin1 since there is no fundamenta! right to education in the Constitution and since the s1stem did not s1stematica!!1 discriminate against a!! poor peop!e in 5e6as# Ji$en the simi!arities bet=een 5e6asE s1stem and those in other states, it =as c!ear to the Court that the funding scheme =as not Bso irrationa! as to be in$idious!1 discriminator1#B 2ustice %o=e!! argued that on the 7uestion of =ea!th and education, Bthe /7ua! %rotection C!ause does not re7uire abso!ute e7ua!it1 or precise!1 e7ua! ad$antages#B