Makeup of the court remains muddled by Wallace departure Watch video
The N.J. Supreme court hears its first cases of the 2010-11 term Monday at the Richard Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton. Appellate Judge Edwin Stern joins the bench on temporary assignment in this September 2010 file photo.TRENTON — For almost three decades, the court case Abbott vs. Burke has been a fault line running through New Jersey government. The original 1985 decision on school funding, which has diverted billions of dollars toward education in the state’s poorest communities, still divides residents and elected officials by demographics, economics and party politics.
This week, the controversial case will burst back into the spotlight. The state Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for Wednesday over whether Gov. Chris Christie’s cuts in education spending are unconstitutional.
Adding to the already hot-button issue of school funding is another wrinkle: the court itself is the subject of intense controversy stemming from Christie’s unprecedented decision to jettison a sitting justice in May.
Now, the court is revisiting one of its most progressive and far-reaching cases at a time when the governor is trying to rein in a court he says has overstepped its bounds.
"I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the justices discuss how they will decide this," said Paul Tractenberg, a Rutgers-Newark law professor.
Indeed, this combination of political and legal battles — with massive implications for the state’s budget and school system — makes this case one of the most closely watched in state history.
"There are so many divisions within society that this represents," said Joseph Marbach, provost of La Salle University. "This has really been the one public policy area that has defied any compromise."
At the heart of this year’s court battle is the state’s school funding formula and Christie’s first budget.
The Supreme Court, in 2009, allowed the state to deviate from the original Abbott decision with a law that allocates education dollars based on enrollment of needy students, rather than a blanket classification of a district as poor or wealthy. But there was a caveat: "Our finding of constitutionality is premised on the expectation that the state will continue to provide school funding aid during this and the next two years at the levels required by (the) formula each year," the court said.
Christie, however, cut school funding by $820 million while closing a nearly $11 billion budget gap. In response, the Education Law Center, which advocates for the state’s poorest districts, filed a legal challenge, saying schools are not receiving "the funding necessary to provide a constitutional education."
The Christie administration, in court filings, says the economic crisis forced the state to reduce education spending, adding that cuts were equitable.
"The reductions do not give rise to any constitutional deficiencies in educational funding and, hence, no judicial involvement is necessary or appropriate," the state’s brief said.
The court’s decision could have enormous implications for the state’s upcoming budget, and Tractenberg, founder of the Education Law Center, sees three possible outcomes.
First, the court could allow the state’s cuts, handing a victory to Christie. Second, the court could grant the state a "time out," meaning a temporary reprieve from fully funding schools during the economic crisis. The third option would force the state to fully fund the formula. The court may even require it to pay schools the $820 million already cut, which would be devastating to Christie, who has tried to pare state spending and avoid tax increases.
Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) said the court’s decision could throw a massive wrench into budget negotiations.
"It makes a very difficult budget process extremely more difficult," he said. "It will almost be unsolvable."
Christie admitted last month he was anxious about the case.
"Of course, I’d be stupid if I wasn’t concerned," he said. "I don’t think the court should be in the business of telling the governor and the Legislature how to spend the people’s money. But we’ll see what the court rules."
A look at past rulings shows Christie may have good reason to be nervous — the court has historically forced the state to spend more on schools.
"The idea that a new court would just sort of say, ‘We’re going to go in a different direction,’ would fly in the face of not just one precedent, but an awful lot of litigation," Rutgers-Camden law professor Robert Williams said.
Assemblyman Joseph Malone (R-Burlington) said the court has been wrong to treat more funding as a panacea for urban schools.
"These guys and gals in black robes, they think they’re god," he said.
Adding to the controversy is the makeup of the bench.
The Supreme Court is caught in a standoff that began in May with Christie’s decision to not renominate Justice John Wallace Jr. (Justices serve a seven-year term, after which they can be reappointed to receive tenure and serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70.) Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who supported Wallace’s reappointment, has refused to hold hearings for Christie’s chosen successor, Anne Patterson, leading to a stalemate.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner cited the state constitution in temporarily assigning an appellate judge, Edwin H. Stern, to the high court in September.
Another front in the conflict opened last month, when Associate Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto announced he is abstaining from voting in all cases in protest, saying the presence of a temporary jurist in Wallace’s spot is unconstitutional. Because the court only needs five members for a quorum, calling up Stern on an interim basis was unnecessary and improper, Rivera-Soto wrote in two opinions.
That could have direct implications for Abbott vs. Burke. Although Rivera-Soto — considered among the court’s most conservative voices — said he will continue to sit on the bench and participate in discussions of the case, he won’t be voting. Rabner is also recusing himself from the case, meaning, unlike Rivera-Soto, he won’t be participating at all. That leaves five voting members — including Stern.
By Chris Megerian and Jessica Calefati/The Star-Ledger
A HISTORY OF COURT BATTLES OVER SCHOOL FUNDING
• 1973: In Robinson v. Cahill, the Supreme Court decides that the state’s heavy reliance on property taxes to fund schools discriminates against students in poor areas. Two years later, the Legislature creates the income tax to boost education funding so that all children "may be able to read, write and function in a political environment."
• 1981: The Newark-based Education Law Center files a lawsuit arguing the state has failed to uphold its constitutional obligation to provide a "thorough and efficient system of public schools" for students in poor, urban school districts.
• 1985: The court’s first Abbott v. Burke ruling orders that urban children receive "inadequate" education funding and that they must be given an education whose quality equals what students in the state’s wealthiest districts receive.
• 1990: After the state passes a new school finance law, the court orders funding equalized between the richest and poorest districts. It also orders that the state create supplemental programs in the urban districts to mitigate disadvantages.
• 1997: The court rules a second school funding law "does not adequately address the unique educational disadvantages" of the state’s poor urban districts, and again orders that funding match what’s available in wealthy districts. One year later, the court mandates urban districts gain access to a series of specific programs, including universal pre-school and new school construction.
• 2007: Gov. Jon Corzine proposes a new school funding law that provides additional resources for any districts with disadvantaged students, erasing the Abbott distinction. It’s signed into law in early 2008.
• 2009: The Superior Court rules that the new law "represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state of New Jersey, and not only those who, by happenstance, reside in Abbott districts." The Supreme Court unanimously upholds the formula.
• March 2010: In an effort to help close the state’s nearly $11 billion budget deficit, Gov. Chris Christie announces an $820 million cut in education aid, distributed in amounts up to 5 percent of the total budget for each of the state’s roughly 600 school districts
• June 2010: The Education Law Center files a legal challenge that the governor’s aid cuts "indisputably violated" the state’s legal obligation to fully fund the formula for state education aid upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2009.
• July 2010: The state, in response to the law center’s motion, argues the cuts were warranted in a year when the state was "pummeled by a national recession."
— Jessica Calefati