(Developing: Will be updated)
The Kansas Supreme Court late Tuesday agreed to give up oversight of the landmark school funding case that was decided more than four years ago.
The court ruled in favor of Attorney General Kris Kobach’s motion to give up jurisdiction of the case, saying that the state met its legal obligation to sufficiently fund schools with the final phased increases planned for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.
The court’s order notes that the plaintiffs acknowledged the Legislature’s appropriation of the increases for both school years, “but they argue that no one can know whether these amounts are sufficient.”
“Given the court’s stated purpose was to retain jurisdiction to ensure implementation of the phased-in amounts and that has occurred, a majority of the court grants the state’s motion,” the court ruled.
Justice Eric Rosen dissented in the ruling, given the history of school funding. He would have denied the state’s motion and ruled for the court to keep jurisdiction.
Justice Caleb Stegall didn’t participate in the case.
“This shows the legislature has prioritized education by fully funding public education. I appreciate this decision by the Kansas Supreme Court,” House Speaker Dan Hawkins said in a statement.
Gov. Laura Kelly had filed a motion seeking to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the case but was rebuffed by the court.
Kelly said the Republican-led Legislature should not construe the court’s order to mean it can cut funding to public education, something that was already causing uneasiness with some public school supporters.
“The legislature must not take this ruling as license to cut funding from our public schools and crush an entire generation of Kansas students,” Kelly said in a statement.
“Our schools have made so much progress over the past five years because we’ve fully funded K-12 education.
“Our students can’t afford to turn back the clock – not back to tax experiments funded by school budget cuts, to 4-day school weeks, or to costly lawsuits.
“I am committed to standing against any and all attempts to strip our schools of the funding they need to prepare our students for success.”
Senate President Ty Masterson said the court’s decision removes “the dark cloud of litigation that has hovered over our education system.”
“We can now focus our attention on improving outcomes so every student in Kansas has the opportunity to succeed,” Masterson said in a statement.
The court retained jurisdiction of the case back in 2019 when it found that the state complied with an order requiring the Legislature to add more money to schools to cover the cost of inflation after already adding more than $800 million in 2017 and 2018.
The court, however, retained jurisdiction to ensure the Legislature complied with its funding mandate even after the case lasted 10 years.
Solicitor General Anthony Powell said the funding plan adopted by the Legislature was to be phased in through the 2022-23 school year.
He said the 2022-23 school year ended June 30 and all planned funding has been successfully phased in.
“This court should now issue its mandate and release jurisdiction of this appeal,” Powell argued in a three-page motion filed with the court.
Kobach issued a statement responding to the decision late Tuesday.
“When it issued its original opinion in this case four years ago, the court said it would end its jurisdiction after July 1. That’s why we made this request.
With the court retaining jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had an avenue to object to any funding changes in the school finance formula that might upset the agreed on funding plan for elementary and secondary education in Kansas.
Public education advocates had worried that public schools would lose any refuge in the courts if the Legislature takes action that changes the funding formula in a way that negatively affects education.
“Kansas public school students deserve the very best education possible,” said Leah Fliter, assistant executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards.
“The Legislature must not use tonight’s announcement as an excuse to abandon those students,” Fliter said.
The plaintiffs in the school funding lawsuit urged the court to keep oversight of the landmark education funding case, saying the Legislature couldn’t be trusted to provide constitutional funding for public education.
“The Kansas legislature has proven itself hungry to violate constitutional funding requirements, but this court’s continued jurisdiction…has prevented it from doing so,” the plaintiffs argued in a motion filed in the case.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the Legislature had targeted provisions in the law that increase school funding based on the consumer price index, most recently during the last legislative session.
The plaintiffs pointed to a conference committee report that would have tied the funding escalator to increases in the Midwest Consumer Price Index during school years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
The Kansas State Department of Education projected that change would have decreased school funding by $215.4 million in 2024-25, the plaintiffs argued in their brief.
They also pointed to an earlier school funding case that was dismissed by the state Supreme Court in 2006 after lawmakers agreed to add more money to education.
“The legislature did not complete the funding plan, and funding almost immediately fell to an unconstitutional level,” they argued.
Judith Deedy, executive director of Game on Kansas, a public education advocacy group, had been “vehemently” opposed to the court giving up jurisdiction.
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision, given the reluctance of the legislature to fund education except under court order,” Deedy said in a text.
“We also can’t ignore the slow pace at which justice occurs. It took multiple years of litigation plus multiple years of phasing in relief in the Gannon case just to get to where we were with the Montoy case in 2009.”
Deedy said the Legislature didn’t live up to its funding commitments in a separate school funding case from 2006. Because the court didn’t retain jurisdiction then, a new lawsuit had to be filed and it lasted until the Supreme Court ruled in 2019, she said.
In 2010, plaintiffs from the earlier lawsuit asked the state Supreme Court to reopen the earlier case in response to reductions in base aid per pupil for fiscal year 2010 during the Great Recession, according a legislative recounting of the legal events at the time.
The court denied the motion, which led to the filing of Gannon. A new lawsuit was filed in November 2010 claiming, among other things, that the state violated the constitution by failing to provide a suitable education to all Kansas students.
