Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York
New York Court of Appeals
801 N.E.2d 326 (2003)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Of all public-school students in New York State (state) (defendant) who were poor, deficient in the English language, or from an ethnic minority, the majority were educated in New York City’s school system. Within the New York City public schools, 84 percent of the students were minorities, and most of those students were poor. Compared to state averages, New York City’s public schools had lower per-pupil funding, larger class sizes, less experienced teachers, more uncertified teachers, more dilapidated facilities, older technology, and fewer books per pupil. Moreover, 50 percent of ninth graders in New York City public schools failed to graduate in four years. Statewide, local districts provided 56 percent of public-school funding, and the state provided 39.9 percent. A legal advocacy organization, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. (CFE) (plaintiff), sued the state, claiming that the state’s funding scheme for public education violated the New York State Constitution. The CFE prevailed at trial, but the appellate division reversed. Among the appellate division’s holdings was that a sound basic education was commensurate with skills typically learned in the eighth or ninth grade. The CFE appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.