Too long, dnr. Skipped to bottom
Can't really do that with a legal opinion. Details are in the middle. I'm about 2/3rds through and it looks like I'm right - the Supreme Court says it wasn't clear in prior rulings as to the exact "adequacy" test to be applied. It now clarifies that test, set out in a Kentucky case called
Rose, and remands (send back) to the district court to apply the correct test.
However, the Supreme Court has said at least one thing that is potentially very harmful to the plaintiffs' case:
In the panel's assessment, funds from all available resources, including grants and federal assistance, should be considered. The legislative history of Article 6 reveals the intent to provide a system of educational finance that is sufficiently flexible to be able to utilize such sources.
This is the state's argument, and indeed, if you consider all funding (federal, etc.), school funding has barely decreased at all (see my earlier post with the numbers). The plaintiffs had wanted to focus only the Kansas portion of the spending, which has been cut more signficiantly.
We appreciate the panel's concern about overreliance on unpredictable federal funding. But there was an obvious increase in federal monies during the years at issue in this litigation, and the legislature was constitutionally empowered to respond with adjustments in state spending.
Ouch. Not good for plaintiffs. Potentially very good news for Brownback.