The state had asked for written clarification to present evidence on state budget
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 — The Supreme Court said today it will not give the state written permission to present evidence on the fiscal crisis when the state goes to court to defend education spending cuts.
The constitutionality of last year’s $820 million cut to state education aid has prompted another court battle in the landmark Abbott v. Burke case, which has routed millions to New Jersey’s largest, poorest school districts over the past three decades.
Earlier last month, the state Supreme Court appointed a Special Master, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, to conduct fact finding on the court's behalf and issue a report to the court by March 31. At issue is whether the state's public school students can still receive "a thorough and efficient" education, the standard required by law, in light of the spending cuts.
The state filed a motion to the court asking for written clarification to present evidence on the state budget.
“Save for the recognition that the Special Master is authorized to entertain any and all evidence as he sees fit in the proper completion of his assigned task, the State’s motion for clarification (on consideration of it’s fiscal condition) is denied,” presiding Justice Virginia Long wrote in the order.
Long also denied the state’s request for more time to prepare its case past the March 31 deadline .
Supreme Court Spokeswoman Winnie Comfort would not comment on whether the state must have the clarification it requested from the court to present evidence on the fiscal crisis.
At a status hearing two weeks ago before Judge Doyne, representatives from the state Attorney General's office did not answer repeated questions from Doyne on how the state would make its case.
The court also ordered last month that the state must prove that the budget cuts did not harm the quality of public education.
Editor's Note; An earlier version of this post was inaccurate in stating the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said today it will not give the state written permission to present evidence on the fiscal crisis when the state goes to court to defend education spending cuts.
Previous coverage:
• N.J. Supreme Court weighs constitutionality of Christie's education cuts
• N.J. Supreme Court to hear arguments on constitutionality of Christie's education budget cuts
• N.J. Supreme Court hears arguments on Abbott schools funding formula
• Complete Star-Ledger coverage of the continuing dispute between N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, NJEA