English v. Board of Education of Town of Boonton
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
301 F.3d 69 (2002)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Under New Jersey law, municipalities could sign an agreement under which children from one municipality would go to school in the other municipality’s school district in exchange for tuition payments from the sending municipality. Under the law, a sending municipality was entitled to one seat on the board of education of the receiving municipality if the sending municipality’s students comprised at least 10 percent of the student population in the receiving school district. The sending municipality was never entitled to more than one seat regardless of its student-population percentage. A municipality could terminate such an agreement at any time after approval from the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. Pursuant to this law, Lincoln Park entered a send-receive intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Boonton (defendant). Under the agreement, Lincoln Park high-school-aged children went to school in Boonton’s high school in exchange for tuition payments from Lincoln Park. In the 2001–02 school year, Lincoln Park children comprised 52 percent of the student population in Boonton’s high school. In accordance with the state law, Lincoln Park was entitled to only one seat on the Boonton Board of Education (the board). English (plaintiff), a resident of Lincoln Park, sued the board, claiming that the state’s restriction on the number of board seats for a sending municipality violated the state-constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.” The trial court granted English summary judgment. Boonton appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.