Why Judges Matter

Case Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

» Why It Matters:

A rule prevents people who have state-issued insurance from using it to pay for an abortion.

Summary:

A group of abortion providers is suing the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services to challenge a law, passed in 1982, that prevents the state from using public dollars to cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant person.

Commonwealth Court ruled against the petitioners in March 2021, saying it was bound by a 1985 state Supreme Court decision that found the 1982 law was constitutional.

The petitioners appealed to the state Supreme Court, which accepted the case and heard oral arguments in November 2022. A final ruling is still pending as of September 2023.

Case Commonwealth v. Ruffin

» Why It Matters:

Police officers have the right to stop drivers if any part of their license plate is obscured. A law later clarified police cannot stop drivers solely because their vehicle has a license frame plate.

Summary:

The Superior Court ruled in 2022 that police officers have the right to stop drivers if any part of their license plate is obscured.

The case stemmed from a 2021 Philadelphia traffic stop, in which a police officer pulled over a car that had the very bottom of its plate obscured — specifically, the portion that lists the commonwealth’s tourism website.

The three-judge panel on the case referred to language in a section of Pennsylvania’s vehicle code that stipulates it is unlawful for a license plate to be in such dirty condition that makes it illegible from a reasonable distance, covered so that it can’t be properly captured by a red light camera or toll collection system, “or is obscured in any manner.”

That latter provision, the judges decided, should be interpreted to mean that any covering of a license plate, including a part that isn’t important for identification, could warrant a traffic stop.

Critics argued that this decision could lead to trivial stops and abuse of power by law enforcement, including racial profiling.

In November 2022, Gov. Tom Wolf signed a bill that included a provision from state Sen. Scott Martin clarifying the law. The provision “stipulates plate obstructions only apply to important identifiable information,” Martin’s office said.

Case In re: Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury

» Why It Matters:

The names of 11 Catholic clergy members implicated in a grand jury investigation of child sexual abuse were kept secret.

Summary:

In late 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to shield the identities of 11 Catholic clergy members implicated in a grand jury investigation of child sexual abuse.

The high court sided with the group of former and current priests who said they were denied due process to defend themselves against allegations they believed were inaccurate or would wrongly harm their reputations.

“Constitutional rights are of the highest order,” wrote Justice Debra Todd. “And even alleged sexual abusers, or those abetting them, are guaranteed by our commonwealth’s constitution the rights of due process."

The conflict between the clergy and the state came after Pennsylvania released a sweeping, damning grand jury report that investigated decades of sexual abuse in the commonwealth’s Catholic dioceses.

The purpose of such an investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring forth charges for a crime. In Pennsylvania, the Office of Attorney General can ask the state Supreme Court to convene a grand jury that represents multiple counties, as happened in this case.

Lawyers for the clergy argued that the report received so much attention, and public opinion was so firmly against the clergy implicated, that “it would be impossible for them to get unbiased consideration of the evidence which they wish to present.”

The lawyers also contended that grand juries should not issue reports critical of individuals when charges are not being filed against them.

The state argued that the implicated clergy were able to write letters in their own defense and that charges hadn’t been brought because the statute of limitations had expired in most of the cases.

The clergy’s names had already been redacted on an interim basis when the report was released, and the court’s majority decided that its only option in the case was to make those redactions permanent.

The justices noted that their ruling is “not to be construed as demeaning the service of the grand jury in this matter… We recognize and appreciate the importance of the grand jury’s efforts. Nevertheless, as the highest Court in this Commonwealth, it is our obligation to guard against constitutional infringements.”

Case Wolf v. Scarnati

» Why It Matters:

The Pennsylvania legislature cannot unilaterally end a governor’s disaster declaration. The ruling has since been overridden by a constitutional amendment.

Summary:

In July 2020, the state Supreme Court found that the legislature could not end a disaster declaration declared by a governor without the executive’s approval.

The then-GOP-controlled legislature sought to end former Gov. Tom Wolf’s COVID-19 emergency declaration, which had significantly expanded his powers, allowing him to order things like evacuations.

The court found that the legislature needed to present the resolution seeking to end the declaration to the governor for approval or rejection.

Typically, the case would have gone through Commonwealth Court first. The Wolf administration, in search of a speedy resolution, asked the Supreme Court to exercise its King’s Bench power. This unique jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to review any case with “immediate public importance” if it so chooses. The Supreme Court granted this request.

In the ruling, Justice David Wecht emphasized that the decision wasn’t about the governor’s response to the pandemic, but rather about the importance of balance in power between branches of government, “a balance that prevents one branch from dominating the others.”

The legislature later responded to this and other conflicts over emergency powers by sending two constitutional amendments to curtail the governor’s disaster authority to the voters. Voters approved both in statewide referenda, capping the amount of time a disaster declaration can be in place without legislative approval.

Case Friends of Danny Devito v. Gov. Tom Wolf

» Why It Matters:

Gov. Tom Wolf’s order closing some Pennsylvania businesses during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic was allowed to stay in place.

Summary:

Four businesses — including the campaign of state House candidate Danny DeVito — and one individual challenged Gov. Tom Wolf’s order to temporarily close all businesses deemed not “life-sustaining” to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The court, which exercised its King’s Bench jurisdiction to take up the case before the lower courts had heard it, ruled that the petitioners were “not entitled to relief.”

DeVito argued in the suit that he should be able to reopen his campaign office. He said Wolf’s order constituted an unjust “taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation.”

The justices decided, however, that Wolf’s order was not a taking because it was temporary.

Case Commonwealth v. Williams

» Why It Matters:

Rapper Meek Mill’s decade-old weapon and drug charges were vacated.

Summary:

In 2019, Superior Court vacated Philadelphia-born rapper Meek Mill’s decade-old weapon and drug charges.

Mill’s high-profile case illustrates the circuitous path cases can take through the commonwealth’s justice system — and also, the ease with which convicted offenders can find themselves back in prison thanks to long parole terms.

Mill, whose legal name is Robert Williams, had originally been convicted and sentenced to serve time in jail by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In the years between his conviction and when his sentence was vacated, he repeatedly landed back in jail after being charged with parole violations — in one notable 2018 episode, the state Supreme Court intervened and ordered that Mill be granted bail.

In the 2019 order vacating Mill’s conviction, Superior Court noted that the Philadelphia police officer who arrested Mill and testified against him in court had subsequently been accused of serious misconduct and had resigned from the force. The “Commonwealth did not inform [Mill] or his counsel of this information any time prior to 2018,” the court wrote.

Case Commonwealth v. Sandusky

» Why It Matters:

Jerry Sandusky remains in prison for sexually abusing children.

Summary:

For more than a decade, Pennsylvania’s court system has considered charges and appeals in the case of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted in 2012 of serially sexually abusing children in his care.

The courts have also considered related cases involving other Penn State officials, including the school’s former president, its vice president, and its athletic director.

The string of cases began in 2011. Following two high-profile grand jury reports released that year, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed charges against Sandusky for committing numerous sexual offenses against 10 boys. At that point, there had already been allegations of abuse against Sandusky for more than a decade.

In 2012, a jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse. He was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in prison by McKean County Judge John M. Cleland, who had been appointed to the case after four Common Pleas Court judges from Penn State’s home county recused themselves from the case. In 2013, Cleland denied an appeal from Sandusky for a new trial. Later in the year, the state Superior Court did the same. In 2014, the state Supreme Court also denied Sandusky’s appeal.

Five years later, in February 2019, Superior Court ordered Sandusky to be re-sentenced after an appeal for a new trial called into question the validity of mandatory sentencing, which had been the basis for Sandusky’s initial 30- to 60-year sentence. He was, however, denied a new trial.

In November 2019, Sandusky was again given a sentence of 30 to 60 years in prison.

Other Penn State officials who knew about Sandusky’s crimes but, in various ways, failed to stop him also had their appeals heard by Superior Court.

Former university President Graham Spanier, university Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley were all convicted of misdemeanor child endangerment in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court.

On the road to those convictions, more serious charges against all three were dropped in appeals to Superior Court, which among other things ruled that major testimony by the administrators was not admissible.

Case Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Williams

» Why It Matters:

Pennsylvania’s governor has the right under the state constitution to issue a reprieve to any incarcerated person sentenced to death, effectively instituting a moratorium.

Summary:

In 2015, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld then-Gov. Tom Wolf’s moratorium on executions, which he had imposed soon after he took office as he awaited a task force report on Pennsylvania’s death penalty.

The test case for this battle was that of Terrance Williams, who was sentenced to death for, at age 18, killing a man who he said had sexually abused him. Wolf gave Williams a reprieve by imposing a total moratorium on the death penalty in the commonwealth.

Pennsylvania prosecutors contested the reprieve, arguing that the governor did not have the power to spare Williams because a reprieve couldn’t be based on concerns about the death penalty in general.

But the high court disagreed and sided with Wolf, writing, “We find no limitation on the executive reprieve power relating to the duration of the reprieve, so long as it is temporary in nature and operates only for an interval of time.”

Wolf maintained his execution moratorium throughout his eight years in office, and his successor, Gov. Josh Shapiro, plans to maintain it. Pennsylvania has not executed a prisoner since 1999.

Case Ball v. Chapman

» Why It Matters:

County officials can’t count mail ballots that are missing a date on the outer envelope or that have a date that is considered “incorrect,” meaning outside the mail voting window.

Summary:

In 2022, with only one week until the November midterm election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered election officials to “refrain from counting” mail ballots with a wrong or missing date on their outer envelopes.

At the time, there had already been considerable litigation over undated ballots, which are cast by eligible voters and arrive in county offices on time. But that litigation had yet to yield a firm precedent on whether these ballots should be counted, leaving counties to decide whether to do so.

The high court’s decision came after state and national Republican groups, as well as individual Republican voters, sued all of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and then-Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration. They argued that undated or misdated ballots should not be counted for the upcoming election, which included races for governor and U.S. Senate races. The crux of their case was a state law that says voters “shall … fill out, date and sign the declaration” on the outer envelope of a mail ballot.

The Wolf administration, on the other hand, argued that in areas where the election code is unclear, it should be interpreted to enfranchise voters. The administration also emphasized a section of the code that says if the envelope of a mail ballot is “sufficient,” it shouldn’t be thrown out. A ballot with a missing date is still “sufficient,” they said, because it doesn’t give county officials any useful information about whether the ballot is valid.

The petitioners, including the Republican National Committee and the Pennsylvania GOP, filed a King’s Bench petition to the state Supreme Court, asking justices to use a special jurisdiction that allows them to review any case of urgent public interest. The state Supreme Court granted this request on Oct. 21, just a little over two weeks before Election Day.

The ruling came down on Nov. 1, a week before the midterms, and the court sided with the Republicans who sued.

“The Election Code commands absentee and mail-in electors to date the declaration that appears upon ballot return envelopes,” stated the opinion. “And failure to comply with that command renders a ballot invalid as a matter of Pennsylvania law.”

Justices did, however, order that counties shouldn’t throw out undated ballots, but should separate and retain them in case a future court ordered them to be counted.

Shortly after the ruling, two federal lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania challenging the decision. One lawsuit was brought forth by three Pennsylvania voters, along with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; the other suit was filed by the ACLU of PA on behalf of various voter outreach groups, including the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP.

Both lawsuits argue that not counting the ballots is in violation of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that no person shall be denied the right to vote in an election “because of an error or omission … if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified.”

Both cases are expected to be heard by United States District Court Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, but it is unclear if a decision will be reached before the Nov. 7, 2023, general election.

In the absence of any other ruling, the 2022 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would stand, meaning counties would not be allowed to count mail ballots with incorrect or missing dates on them.

Case Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar

» Why It Matters:

Counties are allowed to use mail ballot drop boxes, even though they are not specifically mentioned in state law.

Summary:

Less than two months before the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed the use of ballot drop boxes, required poll watchers to live in the county where they wanted to serve, and temporarily extended mail ballot deadlines.

In July 2020, 15 democratic lawmakers and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court seeking rulings on all three of those issues. They additionally filed a King’s Bench petition so that the court could expedite the case, and it was granted.

The suit was in response to another one on the federal level, in which the campaign of then-President Donald Trump and other Republicans sought to ban drop boxes and allow poll watchers to observe voting wherever they wanted.

Pennsylvania’s high court ruled in favor of the Democratic petitioners on all three counts. At the center of the decision was Act 77, a section of the state’s election code that was passed in 2019 and allows voters in Pennsylvania to cast a ballot by mail without an excuse.

Under state law, any mail ballot must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. But in its ruling temporarily extending that deadline for the 2020 general election alone, the state Supreme Court wrote that the change was necessary given the massive U.S. postal delays due to COVID-19. Their ruling was limited to ballots that were postmarked by Election Day.

The court additionally found that satellite drop boxes should be allowed, writing that the decision was “largely the result of the clear legislative intent underlying Act 77, which animates much of this case, to provide electors with options to vote outside of traditional polling places.” And, they said, the commonwealth’s existing poll watcher residency requirement was valid.

In the years since 2020, there has been repeated litigation over drop boxes. The legal precedent for their use currently holds that they are legal, but not required — counties can decide whether or not to use them.

Case Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

» Why It Matters:

Gave teeth to the state’s Environmental Rights Amendment, which provides a constitutional guarantee to clean air and water.

Summary:

In 2016, the state Supreme Court handed down a ruling that struck a blow to the oil and gas industry in the commonwealth, and was credited with “breathing new life” into the state’s environmental rights amendment.

The ruling, which came after considerable back-and-forth between the Commonwealth and Supreme Courts, struck down parts of a 2012 state law regulating fracking, declaring unconstitutional three measures that preempted local ordinances and required the state to issue waivers in certain circumstances for drilling near wetlands and other ecologically sensitive areas.

The suit was brought by the nonprofit Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation and was launched in the midst of boom times in the drilling of the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation. The deposit was an enormous source of energy and capital for the commonwealth, but a subject of great concern for environmentalists.

The group’s argument centered on Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment, or ERA — a provision in its constitution that guarantees Pennsylvanians clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the environment, and declares that the state is a trustee of these resources.

The provision had, at this point, been little utilized. This case changed things, and set the stage for another big win for environmentalists a few years later, in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania.

Case Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

» Why It Matters:

Established that the protections provided by the Environmental Rights Amendment, which provides a constitutional guarantee to clean air and water, cannot be altered through legislation.

Summary:

From 2015 to 2021, a case ping-ponged through Pennsylvania’s court system that sought to give more teeth to the Environmental Rights Amendment — a provision in the state constitution that guarantees clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the environment.

The case sprang from a conflict over the drilling of the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation, and followed a previous long-running case that challenged drilling practices on similar grounds, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, a nonprofit, sued Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration, challenging the state’s practice of putting revenue from drilling on state land in the commonwealth’s General Fund, rather than toward specific preservation purposes. The practice had begun under the former governor, Republican Tom Corbett, and the group argued that this diversion of funds was in violation of the ERA.

The suit was based on the theory that the commonwealth and its agencies are trustees responsible for stewarding public natural resources on behalf of all Pennsylvanians — not just owners of a resource.

As the case progressed, it bounced between the Commonwealth and state Supreme Courts several times.

Commonwealth Court initially heard the case and found the state had done nothing unconstitutional. The high court disagreed, and remanded — or sent back — the case for further consideration. The Commonwealth Court then again found that the state could use drilling revenue for general spending purposes.

Finally, the state Supreme Court handed down a ruling that, again, differed from the Commonwealth Court’s and settled the case: It found that as a trustee of Pennsylvania’s natural resources, the commonwealth has a constitutional duty to put any proceeds from those resources toward the good of the environment.

Case Crawford v. Commonwealth

» Why It Matters:

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh cannot pass their own gun laws. The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal.

Summary:

Philadelphia and other plaintiffs — including the nonprofit CeaseFirePA and a group of city residents affected by gun violence — want to strike down as unconstitutional a 1995 law, the Uniform Firearms Act, that preempts municipalities from enacting stricter gun regulations.

They argue that the legislature has prevented local governments from protecting their constituents by failing to pass laws aimed at stemming gun violence.

In 2022, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the suit while suggesting that the state Supreme Court might disagree, and that the case could lead to a massive overhaul of Pennsylvania’s gun laws.

Judge Patricia McCullough, who wrote the majority opinion for Commonwealth Court, found that the 1995 law and decades of precedent on gun laws in the commonwealth should stand. She wrote that the law’s purpose is to ensure that “citizens of the Commonwealth would not be subjected to varying and differing firearm regulations as they travel from town to town.”

Another judge elected as a Republican said that the state Supreme Court might feel differently. Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer wrote that while she concurs with McCullough, the toll of gun violence in certain communities could justify stricter regulations. She said she thinks Philadelphia’s argument is “novel” and may “provide a basis for “our Supreme Court to reconsider” precedent.

The state Supreme Court held oral arguments on Sept. 13 as it considers reinstating the case.

Crawford isn’t the only gun preemption case currently active in Pennsylvania; it was one of three that Commonwealth Court considered last year. All dealt with Pennsylvania’s two biggest cities, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, attempting to pass their own gun regulations.

Commonwealth Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments in all three cases. McCullough, who authored all of the opinions, held that the precedent should stand, and that Pittsburgh and Philly cannot pass their own gun laws.

The other two cases are Firearm Owners Against Crime v. City of Pittsburgh and City of Philadelphia v. Armstrong.

The Pittsburgh case stemmed from the city’s attempt to pass three new firearm ordinances following the shooting at the Tree of Synagogue in 2018 that killed 11 people.

The ordinances would ban assault weapons in public places, punish gun owners whose storage practices resulted in a minor causing harm with a gun, and permit family members and law enforcement to seek court intervention if they believed a person to be dangerous.

After the ordinances passed, Firearms Owners Against Crime sued and argued that the city was violating the Uniform Firearms Act.

The third case once again concerned Philadelphia. It is the narrowest of the three disputes, and concerns the city’s attempt to pass an ordinance that would have required gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the police.

Like Crawford, these two cases have both been appealed to the state Supreme Court, though they have not received hearing dates and could be rendered moot by the Crawford decision.

Case Pa. Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Pittsburgh

» Why It Matters:

The ruling set a new standard for the state by finding a local municipality, rather than the state legislature alone, has the power to order businesses to provide paid sick leave.

Summary:

In 2015, Pittsburgh passed the Paid Sick Days Act, an ordinance that required employers with fewer than 15 employees to offer at least three days of sick leave a year. Local businesses sued the city, arguing that Pittsburgh was overstepping its home rule authority by regulating businesses.

Allegheny County’s Court of Common Pleas sided with the businesses, as did Commonwealth Court upon appeal.

Eventually, the case went to the state Supreme Court. In 2009, that court found that home rule municipalities can’t “determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations, and employers.”

But in 2019, the justices expressed interest in finding a “middle ground” in the law. Ultimately, they ruled in the city’s favor and upheld the paid sick leave ordinance, arguing among other things that preventing Pittsburgh from creating sick leave standards could undermine home rule completely.

The ordinance took effect in 2020.

Case League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

» Why It Matters:

Pennsylvania got a brand new congressional map after this ruling threw out the 2011 version for being unfairly drawn to benefit Republicans. The state’s delegation went from 12-6 in favor of Republicans to a 9-9 tie between the major parties in the following election.

Summary:

In 2017, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and a group of Democratic voters filed a lawsuit against the commonwealth alleging that the 2011 congressional map was unconstitutional and discriminated against Democratic voters.

The plaintiffs asked that the map be invalidated.

The plaintiffs filed an application to have the case reviewed by the state Supreme Court in order to ensure a resolution in time for the 2018 midterm elections, and the court granted the request.

In a groundbreaking decision, the state Supreme Court struck down the map as unconstitutional and ordered the General Assembly to submit a new map, with the governor’s approval.

Justices found that the map “clearly, plainly and palpably” violated the state constitution, but didn’t initially say why in detail. In a follow-up opinion, they elaborated that the map was so gerrymandered — meaning drawn to favor one political party — that it violated the state constitution’s “free and equal elections clause.”

The map in question had been approved by a Republican state House, state Senate, and governor. It had at that point been in place for three congressional elections. Republican candidates won 13 of the commonwealth’s then-18 congressional seats, though they received a maximum of 55% of the statewide vote in all of those elections.

In 2018, the state House and Senate were controlled by Republicans and the governor was a Democrat. They were unable to find consensus on a map before the court’s deadline. The court then appointed a special master to draw one and adopted it for use in the 2018 election.

That election yielded a very different Pennsylvania congressional delegation: one that consisted of nine Democrats and nine Republicans.

Case Carter v. Chapman

» Why It Matters:

The state Supreme Court — not the General Assembly and governor — put in place Pennsylvania’s congressional map to break an impasse.

Summary:

In 2021, two groups of Pennsylvania voters filed lawsuits against the acting secretary of the commonwealth and other election officials, saying that they were concerned that new congressional districts would not be in place in time for the 2022 midterm elections.

Congressional districts are redrawn every ten years to make sure they reflect up-to-date population data. In Pennsylvania, this redrawing is done by state lawmakers: The state House and Senate draft and pass a map, and the governor signs it.

But in 2021, the voters argued that it was necessary for the judicial system to get involved because the General Assembly and governor had failed to come to a consensus before they concluded their regular session for the year. They further argued it would be unconstitutional to use the current map, which was created using outdated data from the 2010 census.

This wouldn’t be the first time the court intervened when a divided government couldn’t come up with a map, though the specifics of justices’ rulings have varied in the cases when they’ve stepped in.

As the case progressed, the legislature did pass a map, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed it, calling it skewed to benefit Republicans and leaving the legislative process stuck.

The voters’ case was initially filed to the Commonwealth Court, which solicited map proposals from the plaintiffs, the governor, both chambers of the legislature, and other concerned citizens. The state Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction and appointed a conservative Commonwealth Court judge as a special master for recommending a map.

She recommended a map submitted by state House Republicans. State Supreme Court justices instead chose a map submitted by a group of the original petitioners that had been designed to create the “least change” in comparison with the state’s previous map, which had itself been commissioned by the court.

Case William Penn School District et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Education et al.

» Why It Matters:

Pennsylvania will need to come up with a new or updated way to fund public schools.

Summary:

In 2023, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled that the way Pennsylvania funds its public schools is unconstitutionally inequitable, siding with parents, advocates, and six school districts that filed the lawsuit eight years ago.

In her landmark decision, Commonwealth Court Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer wrote that “students attending low-wealth districts are being deprived of equal protection of law,” and that this violates the state constitution. The ruling, however, did not offer any specific solution to address the problem, inherently putting the onus on policymakers to remedy the multibillion-dollar disparity.

The decision was not appealed to the state Supreme Court and the original petitioners have said they are ready to go back to court if lawmakers fail to sufficiently resolve the issue.

As of September 2023, state lawmakers are holding hearings to explore funding disparities, and have generally broken along party lines over the best way to address school funding, with Democrats in favor of additional money in education, and Republicans favoring strategies that push responsibility for education to the private sector, as in the use of school vouchers.