1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 08–2006

Filed April 20, 2012

ROZANNE E. KING; ALISHA JANE KING;

DACIE S. HOUSTON, Individually and as

Mother and Next Friend of SKYLAR DWAYNE 

OSTRANDER, CHAY CORTEZ OSTRANDER,

and ADLIA WILLIAM CORTEZ FLOOD III;

BRANDY R. DRAKE, Individually and as Mother

and Next Friend of LOGAN GENNER LUHMANN, 

SUSAN MAULE, STEPHANIE MAULE, and JACOB MAULE;

MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Individually and as Father

and Next Friend of GEORGE CAMPBELL and 

SOPHIA CAMPBELL; and LAURA CAMPBELL, 

Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of 

CHRISTOPHER RASSO, GEORGE CAMPBELL, and

SOPHIA CAMPBELL,

Appellants,

vs.

THE STATE OF IOWA; CHESTER J. CULVER, 

in His Official Capacity as the Governor of the 

State of Iowa; THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION; and JUDY JEFFREY, in Her Official 

Capacity as the Director of the Iowa Department of

Education,

Appellees.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. 

Romano, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a district court ruling granting the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED.

Douglas E. Gross, Rebecca A. Brommel and Haley R. Van Loon of 

Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C., 

Des Moines, for appellants.
2

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeanie Kunkle Vaudt, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
3

MANSFIELD, Justice.

A generation ago, in Johnson v. Charles City Community Schools 

Board of Education, 368 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 1985), we observed that the 

“state has a clear right to set minimum educational standards for all its 

children and a corresponding responsibility to see to it that those 

standards are honored.” Yet we also concluded that a “court is without 

either the resources or the expertise necessary” to draft minimum 

educational standards for private religious schools. Id. at 80.

This case concerns Iowa’s standards for public schools. It asks us, 

in effect, to require the state to impose additional public school 

standards, urging that such action is both constitutionally and 

statutorily required.

Adhering to the lessons of the Johnson case, we decline the 

invitation. We hold that plaintiffs’ specific challenges to the educational 

policies of this state are properly directed to the plaintiffs’ elected 

representatives, rather than the courts. We find the plaintiffs have not 

stated claims for relief under article IX, division 2, section 3, article I, 

section 6, or article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution, or Iowa Code 

section 256.37 (2007).

Our decision does not foreclose future constitutional challenges to 

actions taken by state or local officials in the vital field of public 

education. We decide only that this case, brought by these plaintiffs, 

should not go forward because the factual allegations, even if proved, do 

not set forth a potential constitutional or statutory violation under the 

foregoing provisions.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ 

petition.
4

I. Facts and Procedural Background.

Because this case was decided on a motion to dismiss, our relevant 

point of reference is the plaintiffs’ petition. The plaintiffs’ first amended 

and substituted petition, which the district court ultimately dismissed, is 

twenty-three pages long. It includes a two-page summary, entitled 

“Nature of the Lawsuit,” as well as thirteen pages of “Factual 

Allegations.”

The sixteen named plaintiffs are students or parents of students 

who attended or currently attend public schools in the Davenport, Des 

Moines, or West Harrison Community School Districts. As explained by 

plaintiffs’ counsel at oral argument, plaintiffs’ position is that Iowa’s 

educational system is not adequately serving students in either the 

largest (e.g., Davenport and Des Moines) or the smallest (e.g., West 

Harrison) school districts. The case is not brought as a class action.

According to the initial summary contained in the petition, “[t]he 

quiet, ugly truth is that Iowa’s educational system is but a shadow of its 

glorious past and our leaders are whistling by its graveyard.” Plaintiffs 

allege that there exists a “disparity in educational outcomes [in Iowa] 

based upon where one goes to school” and there has been a “failure[] to 

provide similar educational opportunities for all of Iowa’s students.”

Plaintiffs have not named any local school officials as defendants. 

They have sued, rather, the State of Iowa, the Governor of Iowa, the Iowa 

Department of Education, and the Director of the Department. In their 

initial summary, plaintiffs allege that these statewide entities and 

officials “have failed to establish standards, failed to enforce any 

standards, failed to adopt effective educator pay systems, and failed to 

establish and maintain an adequate education delivery system.”
5

In the ensuing factual allegations, plaintiffs allege that Iowa’s 

statewide laws and rules are “broad educational requirements and 

accreditation standards for schools within the State of Iowa.” They do 

not, in plaintiffs’ view, contain “specific, detailed information regarding 

the courses that schools must provide or offer to [their] students nor do 

they set forth any details regarding the skills that must be attained by 

students at each grade level.” Repeatedly, plaintiffs criticize Iowa for the 

lack of “state-mandated standards.” They maintain that Iowa is the only 

state without any statewide academic standards. Plaintiffs also fault 

Iowa for not “providing specific testing of students at various educational 

levels and in a variety of subject matters like other states,” instead 

relying on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Iowa Test of 

Educational Development (ITED).

This part of the petition refers to a number of reports and studies.1 

For example, plaintiffs note that according to Education Week’s Quality 

Counts 2008 report, Iowa received a “C” for educational performance.2

Plaintiffs also cite Iowa Department of Education statistics that, in 

their view, show how students attending the smallest school districts 

(less than 250 students) are disadvantaged. According to the 

Department’s 2007 Annual Condition of Education report, teachers in 

 1See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S. Ct. 

2499, 2509, 168 L. Ed. 2d 179, 193 (2007) (in ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts 

must ordinarily consider documents incorporated into the complaint by reference); 

Hallett Constr. Co. v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 261 Iowa 290, 295, 154 N.W.2d 71, 

74 (1967) (highway specifications that were incorporated in the petition by reference 

were deemed part of the petition and could be considered in a default proceeding). 

Because this action was brought in 2008, the materials cited by plaintiffs date from 

2008 or earlier.

2This was a middling performance, according to this source. The national 

average was a C. See Iowa—State Highlights 2008, Education Week’s Quality Counts 

(Editorial Projects in Educ. Research Ctr., Bethesda, Md.), 2008, at 2, available at 

http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2008/01/10/index.html.
6

those districts have, on average, less experience, fewer advanced degrees, 

and more teaching assignments than their colleagues at the largest 

school districts, such as Davenport and Des Moines. Iowa Dep’t of 

Educ., The Annual Condition of Education at 47, 75, 76 (2007)

[hereinafter The Annual Condition of Education], available at

http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view

&gid=646&itemid=1563. Unsurprisingly, according to the petition, 

students in the smallest districts also have fewer curriculum units 

available to them.3 Id. at 112.

Additionally, students from Iowa’s smallest school districts receive, 

on average, lower ACT scores. In 2007, according to the Department of 

Education report, the average ACT composite score was 21.3 for students 

at districts in the lowest enrollment category (less than 250 students). 

Id. at 192. By contrast, the average ACT composite score was 22.5 for 

students attending districts in the largest enrollment category. Id. The 

petition notes, however, that the national average ACT composite score 

was 21.2. Id. at 186. Thus, all categories of school districts in Iowa 

scored above the national average.4

Plaintiffs further allege that Iowa’s ranking in science and math is 

“consistently declining”; that Iowa “has continued to decline in the 

national rankings for math and reading proficiencies and other measures 

of student achievement”; that “Iowa ranks well below the national 

average for students taking gateway courses such as Algebra, Algebra 2 

 3On the other hand, the 2007 report indicates that students at the smallest 

school districts benefit, on average, from much smaller class size. The Annual Condition 

of Education, at 122. For example, the relevant comparisons are 11.9 versus 20.5 

students per class for kindergarten, 11.8 versus 21.4 per class for first grade, 13.1 

versus 21.6 for second grade, and 13.7 versus 22.7 for third grade. Id.

4The 2007 report further reveals that Iowa’s average ACT composite score of 

22.3 was tied with Wisconsin for second place in the nation. Id. at 185.
7

or Geometry”; that “Iowa ranks thirty-eighth in the nation for AP 

[Advanced Placement] test scores”; and that “[m]any Iowa students are 

not prepared to enter the workforce or post-secondary education without 

additional training or remediation when they graduate from high school.”

Some of the factual allegations concern “the circumstances of the 

plaintiffs.” These allegations do not actually discuss the plaintiffs 

individually, but rather their school districts. According to the petition, 

one of the districts, West Harrison, has approximately 500 students. 

(Thus, it does not fall into the smallest category of school district, i.e., 

less than 250 students, referenced earlier in the petition.) Among other 

things, plaintiffs allege that West Harrison had an average ACT 

composite score of 18.6 in 2006, nearly three and a half points below the 

average ACT score for all Iowa students; that only ten to twelve percent of 

West Harrison’s teachers have advanced degrees; that West Harrison 

does not have anyone on staff to assist high school students with college 

planning or other career counseling; and that classes at West Harrison 

do not adequately prepare students for a college level curriculum.

With regard to the Davenport school district, plaintiffs do not find 

fault with teacher experience, staffing, or class availability, but allege 

that its average composite ACT score in 2007 was 20.5. No allegations 

are made as to teacher experience, staffing, class availability, or ACT 

scores in the Des Moines school district. However, with respect to all 

three of the school districts, plaintiffs allege that the percentages of 

students found proficient in math and reading according to ITBS and 

ITED scores generally have ranged between fifty and seventy percent, a 

level that plaintiffs appear to believe is unsatisfactory.

The petition has two counts seeking relief. In Count I, plaintiffs 

request a declaratory judgment. They allege that education is a 
8

fundamental right or alternatively that the current education laws (“or 

lack thereof”) are “irrational, arbitrary, and capricious” and not 

“rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” They also allege 

that “some students are receiving a more effective education than other 

students based solely upon where the student resides.” They allege the 

defendants have “failed to establish and provide access to an effective 

education” by (1) “failing to establish educational standards,” (2) failing 

to enforce and utilize such standards, (3) “failing to implement a 

professional pay system for educators consistent with such standards,” 

(4) “failing to provide equal access,” and (5) “failing to develop an effective 

organizational and delivery system and failing to address or abolish the 

disparities among different school[] districts in Iowa.” They allege 

violations of the due process, equal protection, and education clauses of 

the Iowa Constitution and Iowa Code section 256.37.

Count II seeks an order of mandamus. It alleges similar failures 

on the part of the defendants, but goes on to assert that these failures 

amount to a breach of duty and requests an order directing the 

defendants to provide an effective education.

Finally, plaintiffs’ prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the 

defendants have failed to provide an effective education in accordance 

with the due process, equal protection, and education clauses and Iowa 

Code section 256.37. It also requests an order of mandamus or 

permanent injunction directing the defendants to (1) undertake all 

suitable means to provide an effective education; (2) develop educational 

content and performance standards for all Iowa school districts which 

detail required course offerings, instructor capabilities, and testing 

requirements, among other things; (3) improve or develop state 

assessments; (4) develop and enforce professional development 
9

programs; (5) implement a career ladder to enhance recruitment and 

retention of quality teachers; (6) enforce the standards by identifying and 

enforcing consequences for failure to follow and implement such 

standards; (7) “develop educational management and governance 

arrangements to mitigate all procedural and structural impediments to 

an effective education”; and (8) “[c]lose the achievement gaps among the 

school[] districts in Iowa.”

Plaintiffs’ original petition was filed April 3; their first amended and 

substituted petition on April 30. On June 21, 2008, the defendants filed 

a motion to dismiss. In their nine-page motion, the defendants argued: 

(1) all the constitutional claims raised a nonjusticiable political question; 

(2) the equal protection and due process claims failed to state a claim; 

(3) there is no private cause of action under section 256.37; 

(4) mandamus did not lie; (5) the Governor could not be sued; and (6) the 

Iowa Administrative Procedures Act was the exclusive means of obtaining 

review of acts or omissions by the Department of Education.

This motion was resisted on all grounds by plaintiffs; a hearing 

was held; and on November 21, 2008, the district court granted the 

defendants’ motion.

In a thoughtful sixteen-page ruling, the district court found the 

plaintiffs had stated claims for relief under the equal protection clause 

and the due process clause, but all their constitutional claims presented 

a nonjusticiable political question, and their statutory claim under 

section 256.37 failed because that provision does not afford a private 

right of action. The court also found the plaintiffs had not satisfied the 

prerequisites for seeking mandamus. The court dismissed the action in 

its entirety for these reasons, declining to reach the defendants’ 

remaining asserted grounds for dismissal. Plaintiffs appeal.
10

II. Standard of Review.

Our review of a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss is for 

correction of errors at law. Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 

711 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Iowa 2006). “A motion to dismiss should only be 

granted if the allegations in the petition, taken as true, could not entitle 

the plaintiff to any relief.” Sanchez v. State, 692 N.W.2d 812, 816 (Iowa 

2005). “A motion to dismiss admits the well-pleaded facts in the petition, 

but not the conclusions.” Kingsway Cathedral, 711 N.W.2d at 8.

III. Analysis.

A. Introduction. We begin our analysis of this case by 

discussing, briefly, what it is not. For one thing, this is not a school 

funding case. Plaintiffs do not allege that Iowa has a funding system 

that discriminates among school districts or even one that funds schools 

inadequately.5 Also, plaintiffs are not questioning any specific law, rule, 

 5Approximately forty-one other state supreme courts have considered broad 

constitutional challenges to the state education system. The vast majority of these 

cases have been primarily concerned with the state’s method of funding education—i.e., 

allegations that funding is either inequitable, inadequate, or both. See Opinion of the 

Justices, 624 So.2d 107, 112 n.5 (Ala. 1993) (funding “a major focus of plaintiffs’ case”), 

abrogated by Ex parte James, 836 So.2d 813, 819 (Ala. 2002) (ultimately finding 

challenge nonjusticiable); Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 

394 (Ak. 1997) (challenge to Alaska’s public school funding laws; summary judgment 

for the state upheld); Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806, 

815–16 (Ariz. 1994) (finding Arizona’s system of funding public education 

unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution); Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. 

Huckabee, 91 S.W.3d 472, 500 (2002) (finding Arkansas’s method of funding education 

violated the Arkansas Constitution) (mandate recalled on other grounds by Lake View 

Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 142 S.W.3d 643 (2004) (per curiam) and Lake View Sch. 

Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 210 S.W.3d 28 (2005)); Serrano v. Priest, 557 P.2d 929, 957–

58 (Cal. 1976) (holding California violated the California Constitution in its manner of 

financing public schools); Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358, 364 (Colo. 2009) (allowing 

challenge to Colorado’s school financing system to proceed); Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 

359, 374–75 (Conn. 1977) (holding that the state has a constitutional obligation to 

provide “substantially equal” free public education in terms of state funding); Coal. for 

Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So.2d 400, 405–08 (Fla. 1996) 

(upholding dismissal of lawsuit claiming that the state had failed to allocate adequate 

resources to public schools); McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 156, 168 (Ga. 1981) 

(rejecting challenge to Georgia’s system of financing public education); Idaho Sch. for 

Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, 129 P.3d 1199, 1209 (Idaho 2005) (affirming trial
11

_______________________________

court’s conclusion that Idaho’s current method of funding as it related to school 

facilities violated the Idaho Constitution); Comm. for Educ. Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 

1178, 1196–97 (Ill. 1996) (affirming dismissal of lawsuit challenging Illinois’s system of 

financing public schools); Bonner ex rel. Bonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516, 522–23 

(Ind. 2009) (holding that state public education finance scheme did not violate Indiana 

Constitution); Montoy v. State, 120 P.3d 306, 308 (Kan. 2005) (reversing finding of equal 

protection violations but upholding district court finding that Kansas’s statutory 

scheme for funding the public schools violated a separate provision of the Kansas 

Constitution); Charlet v. Legislature, 713 So.2d 1199, 1207 (La. Ct. App. 1998) (granting 

summary judgment upon finding the state followed constitutionally proscribed 

mechanisms for providing school funding); Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 1 v. Comm’r, Dep’t of 

Educ., 659 A.2d 854, 857 (Me. 1995) (rejecting challenge to reductions in state 

education funding); Hornbeck v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 458 A.2d 758, 790 (Md. 

1983) (holding that Maryland’s system of financing public education was not 

unconstitutional); Milliken v. Green, 212 N.W.2d 711, 720–21 (Mich. 1973) (rejecting 

challenge to discrepancies in school funding resulting from Michigan’s manner of 

financing public school education); Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 320 (Minn. 1993) 

(holding Minnesota’s current method for funding the education system did not violate 

the Minnesota Constitution); Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 294 S.W.3d 477, 495 (Mo. 

2009) (finding no constitutional violation in Missouri’s school funding formula); 

Columbia Falls Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. State, 109 P.3d 257, 263 (Mont. 2005) 

(finding Montana’s method of funding schools violates Montana’s constitutional 

mandate to provide “quality” schools); Helena Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 769 

P.2d 684, 690–91 (Mont. 1989) (finding Montana’s method of funding public schools 

unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution); Neb. Coal. for Educ. Equal. & 

Adequacy v. Heineman, 731 N.W.2d 164, 183 (Neb. 2007) (holding plaintiffs’ challenges 

to inadequate funding to present nonjusticiable political questions); Clarement Sch. Dist. 

v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353, 1360 (N.H. 1997) (finding the state’s system crafted to fund 

public education to be unconstitutional); Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 693 A.2d 417, 

432–33 (N.J. 1997) (holding funding provisions for regular education expenditures to be 

unconstitutional); Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273, 295–98 (N.J. 1973) (determining 

that New Jersey’s method of funding education which relied on local taxation for 

approximately sixty-seven percent of public school costs and led to great disparities in 

dollar input per pupil violated the New Jersey Constitution); Bd. of Educ. v. Nyquist, 

439 N.E.2d 359, 363–70 (N.Y. 1982) (holding New York’s school financing system does 

not violate the State or Federal Constitution); Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 599 

S.E.2d 365, 390–91 (N.C. 2004) (finding state’s method of funding and providing for 

school districts violated the state constitution); Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. 1 v. State, 511 

N.W.2d 247, 263 (N.D. 1994) (failing to declare that the overall impact of the statutory 

method for distributing funding for education was unconstitutional under the state 

constitution); Bd. of Educ. v. Walter, 390 N.E.2d 813, 825–26 (Ohio 1979) (finding “the 

General Assembly has not so abused its broad discretion in enacting the present system 

of financing education as to render the statutes in question unconstitutional”); Okla. 

Educ. Ass’n v. State ex rel. Okla. Legislature, 158 P.3d 1058, 1066 (Okla. 2007) (holding 

challenges to state funding system presented nonjusticiable political questions); Coal. 

for Equitable Sch. Funding, Inc. v. State, 811 P.2d 116, 121–22 (Or. 1991) (holding the 

method of funding public schools did not violate Oregon’s Constitution); Danson v. 

Casey, 399 A.2d 360, 367 (Pa. 1979) (finding the state’s financing scheme did not 

violate the Pennsylvania Constitution); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 61–

62 (R.I. 1995) (upholding Rhode Island’s funding system); Richland Cnty. v. Campbell,
12

or policy enacted or promulgated by any of the defendants. This is a 

case challenging government inaction, not government action. Further, 

the defendants are not alleged to have engaged in disparate treatment of 

anyone. Plaintiffs do not claim the defendants have a different policy or 

standard for different types or categories of schools.

Rather, the entire focus of plaintiffs’ lawsuit is on the defendants’ 

alleged “failure” to act on a statewide basis. More specifically, plaintiffs 

allege that the defendants have failed to establish statewide educational 

standards, assessments, and teacher training, recruitment, and 

retention programs. To be sure, plaintiffs claim they have been denied 

“equal access” as a result of these “failures,” but that is an allegation of 

_______________________________

364 S.E.2d 470, 472 (S.C. 1988) (holding system for financing and funding schools did 

not violate the South Carolina Constitution); Davis v. State, 804 N.W.2d 618, 641 (S.D. 

2011) (finding South Dakota’s system of funding education did not violate the education 

clause of the South Dakota Constitution); Dean v. Coddington, 131 N.W.2d 700, 703 

(S.D. 1964) (upholding educational funding statute as constitutional); Tenn. Small Sch. 

Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 156 (Tenn. 1993) (finding the state’s statutory 

funding scheme was unconstitutional); Neely v. W. Orange-Cove Consol. Indep. Sch. 

Dist., 176 S.W.3d 746, 754 (Tex. 2005) (holding state public school finance system was 

constitutional); Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 384, 397 (Vt. 1997) (determining the state’s 

system of financing public education violated the Vermont Constitution); Scott v. 

Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 138, 141–42 (Va. 1994) (holding Virginia’s Constitution was 

not violated by the school funding system); Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 585 P.2d 71, 

105 (Wash. 1978) (finding state’s current school financing system to be 

unconstitutional); Vincent v. Voight, 614 N.W.2d 388, 415 (Wis. 2000) (holding 

Wisconsin’s school finance system was constitutional); Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. 

State, 181 P.3d 43, 84 (Wyo. 2008) (upholding state’s financing system as 

constitutional).

However, a few state supreme courts have favorably considered (at least for 

motion to dismiss purposes) claims that focus upon the quality of education, as 

opposed to funding. See Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 990 A.2d 

206, 210–11, 271 (Conn. 2010) (holding the plaintiffs’ allegations that they had not 

received suitable educational opportunities stated cognizable claims in light of 

Connecticut’s constitutional mandate for “free public elementary and secondary 

schools”); Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Ky. 1989) (holding 

that the Kentucky General Assembly had not complied with its constitutional mandate 

to “provide an efficient system of common schools”); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 

515 S.E.2d 535, 539–40 (S.C. 1999) (holding that plaintiffs had stated a claim under 

the South Carolina Constitution’s education clause requiring that “the General Assembly 

shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public education”).
13

disparate impact, not disparate treatment. There is no allegation that the 

defendants, for example, have treated the West Harrison school district 

any differently from other, larger school districts. Simply stated, 

plaintiffs charge the defendants with not having affirmatively adopted 

policies that would eliminate existing discrepancies among districts, for 

example, as to average student test scores.

B. The Legal Issues Before Us. As we have indicated many times 

before, “we will uphold a district court ruling on a ground other than the 

one upon which the district court relied provided the ground was urged 

in that court.” Martinek v. Belmond-Klemme Cmty. Sch. Dist., 772 

N.W.2d 758, 762 (Iowa 2009) (citations omitted); see also Fennelly v. A-1 

Mach. & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 163, 177 (Iowa 2006); Emmert v. Neiman, 

245 Iowa 931, 934, 65 N.W.2d 606, 608 (1954) (“We have held many 

times that in reviewing a ruling sustaining a motion to strike or dismiss, 

the same should be sustained if any of the grounds advanced are good, 

even though the one upon which the trial court based its ruling, is not.”

(citations omitted)).

Here the defendants urged dismissal of the constitutional claims in 

the district court on the alternative grounds that they were 

nonjusticiable and that they failed to state a claim. Both parties had a 

full opportunity to brief (and did brief) those matters below. Although 

the defendants’ appellate brief does not specifically urge that we affirm 

on the basis of failure to state a claim if we find one or more of the claims 

justiciable, the defendants made that request at oral argument. The 

parties have provided their district court briefing to us, and neither side 

has suggested that further briefing is needed. In any event, because 

both grounds were duly raised before the trial court, we could affirm on 

either ground even if it were not argued to us. See Erickson v. Erickson’s 
14

Estate, 191 Iowa 1393, 1397, 180 N.W. 664, 665 (1920). The 

fundamental principle is one of fairness to the parties and the trial court. 

See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62–63 (Iowa 2002). That fairness is 

assured so long as the grounds on which we are affirming were presented 

to the trial court so the trial court had an opportunity to rule on them 

and the opposing party had an opportunity to counter them if it felt it 

needed to do so. Cf. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Charter Barclay Hosp., 

Inc., 81 F.3d 53, 56 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that it “would not be quite 

cricket” to decide a case on a ground that had not been raised at all by 

the appellee before oral argument of the appeal). Also, because the 

district court has already indicated that it believes the equal protection 

and due process claims would be sufficient if they were justiciable, a 

remand for it to rule again on the viability of those claims (assuming 

their justiciability) seems particularly unnecessary and would only 

prolong the proceedings.

In State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655, 660–61 (Iowa 2005), we 

declined to reach several constitutional arguments that were presented 

to and not ruled upon by the district court, and that were also not 

presented to us. That was an appropriate exercise of our discretion, but 

it is a far cry from the present case. Here the parties not only briefed 

below whether the equal protection and due process claims should be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, the district court also decided these 

questions. A remand for the district court to rule again on whether the 

plaintiffs have stated a claim therefore would serve no purpose. At oral 

argument, the plaintiffs did not object to this court’s considering whether 

they stated a claim, nor would such an objection have made sense.

Appellants and appellees stand in different positions because the 

appellant seeks to overturn the judgment rendered below. See Ritz v. 
15

Wapello Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999) 

(stating that “[w]e have recognized . . . a distinction between successful 

and unsuccessful parties for purposes of error preservation” (citations 

omitted)). Our rules provide that an appellee need not even file a brief in 

our court. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(3) (indicating that the appellee may 

waive filing a brief). The appellant, by contrast, must file a brief and is 

limited to the issues raised in that brief. See id. r. 6.903(2); Dilley v. City 

of Des Moines, 247 N.W.2d 187, 195 (Iowa 1976) (citing cases). Of 

course, we may choose to consider only grounds for affirmance raised in 

the appellee’s brief, but we are not required to do so, so long as the 

ground was raised below. In recent years, we have even on occasion 

affirmed on grounds not raised below. For example, in State v. Reyes, 

744 N.W.2d 95, 99–100 (Iowa 2008), we affirmed on a statutory ground 

that was not raised either below or in the appellate briefs, until we 

invited supplemental briefing. In State v. Adams, we granted further 

review and invited supplemental briefing on an issue that had not been 

raised by either party either below or on appeal, and then rendered a 

decision on that issue. See Order for Supplemental Briefing, State v. 

Adams, 810 N.W.2d 365, 366 (Iowa 2012) (No. 08–0513).

This appeal has been brought to us. The elected branches of our 

state government are currently engaged in an active debate about state 

educational policy. They are entitled to know whether this lawsuit may 

affect their policy choices. It would be an abnegation of our 

responsibility not to reach a legal question about the sufficiency of the 

plaintiffs’ pleadings that was fully developed and decided by the district 

court.

Additionally, the political question grounds and the failure to state 

a claim grounds are interrelated. In either case, we assume the truth of 
16

the plaintiffs’ factual allegations and determine whether, under those 

facts, the plaintiffs could be entitled to judicial relief.6

C. The Education Clause. We first consider plaintiffs’ claims 

under article IX, division 2, section 3 of the Iowa Constitution.7 In its 

entirety, this section reads as follows:

Perpetual support fund. Sec. 3. The General 

Assembly shall encourage, by all suitable means, the 

promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural 

improvement. The proceeds of all lands that have been, or 

hereafter may be, granted by the United States to this State, 

for the support of schools, which may have been or shall 

hereafter be sold, or disposed of, and the five hundred 

thousand acres of land granted to the new States, under an 

act of Congress, distributing the proceeds of the public lands 

among the several States of the Union, approved in the year 

of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, and 

all estates of deceased persons who may have died without 

leaving a will or heir, and also such percent as has been or 

may hereafter be granted by Congress, on the sale of lands 

in this State, shall be, and remain a perpetual fund, the 

interest of which, together with all rents of the unsold lands, 

and such other means as the General Assembly may provide, 

 6This case was originally argued in March 2010, before three current members 

joined this court. It was then reargued in June 2011. Even at the first oral argument, 

some of the questioning related to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, including the following 

questions taken from the recording:

I take it this is a bit of an attack on local control, correct me if I’m wrong?

Aren’t you in essence saying that a local school board then would not have 

the authority to say: well we want to set our tax rates at a certain level; 

we are concerned about economic development in this rural setting, we 

don’t want to get the taxes up high; we choose not to promote advanced 

placement courses and instead we want to have a broad based athletic 

program.

Supposing there were a uniform standard, number one wouldn’t that pose 

a risk of a lower standard as the legislature considers what’s uniform 

across the board that they want to bring the rural districts up and maybe 

the urban districts down?

Secondly, supposing that standard were established could a wealthier 

district then elect to apply a richer environment?

(Emphasis added.)

7Plaintiffs do not argue, either here or below, that they have claims under 

division 1 of article IX of the Iowa Constitution.
17

shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of common 

schools throughout the state.

Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 2, § 3 (1857 original version) (emphasis added). 

The present controversy concerns the italicized first sentence above, 

which both parties refer to as “the education clause.”8

Plaintiffs contend the education clause imposes judicially 

enforceable obligations on Iowa’s legislature to promote education by “all 

suitable means.” Defendants counter that plaintiffs’ claims under the 

clause present a nonjusticiable political question. Otherwise stated, 

defendants maintain that the education clause reflects a grant of funding 

authority to the legislature, not a limit upon legislative policy in the field 

of education.

Constitutional provisions, like statutes, need to be read in context. 

See Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Inc. Town of Grand Junction, 221 Iowa 

441, 463, 264 N.W. 84, 95 (1935) (Parsons, J., specially concurring) (“A 

Constitution should be construed as a whole, just like a statute.”). 

Article IX of the 1857 Constitution of the State of Iowa, entitled, 

“Education and School Lands,” was enacted in two divisions. The first 

division of article IX, captioned “Education,” established a state board of 

education and conferred on that board powers and duties relating to 

education policy. In particular, section 1 of that division provided, “The 

educational interest of the State, including Common Schools and other 

educational institutions, shall be under the management of a Board of 

Education . . . .” Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, § 1. Section 8 authorized 

the board of education “to legislate and make all needful rules and 

regulations in relation to Common Schools,” although it also permitted 

 8We have not used that term previously in any case.
18

the general assembly to “alter[], amend[] or repeal[]” the board’s acts, 

rules and regulations after they had been adopted. Id. art. IX, div. 1, § 8.

The second division of article IX, captioned “School Funds and 

School Lands,” sets forth provisions relating to the funding of education, 

especially through the sale of state-owned lands. Whereas the first 

division entrusted the “educational interest” to the board of education, 

the second division made clear that funding would be the legislature’s 

domain. Hence, the first section of the second division states, “[t]he 

educational and school funds and lands, shall be under the control and 

management of the General Assembly of this state.” Id. art. IX, div. 2, 

§ 1.

The third section of the second division, wherein the education 

clause is found, is entitled “Perpetual support fund.” Id. art IX, div. 2, 

§ 3. The clause itself then follows. The remaining language of this 

section, after the education clause, speaks in terms of “a perpetual fund, 

the interest of which, together with all rents of the unsold lands, and 

such other means as the General Assembly may provide, shall be 

inviolably appropriated to the support of Common schools throughout 

the State.” Id. All this, we believe, supports a construction of the 

education clause as a funding provision, which allocated to the general 

assembly the authority to provide money for education, and thereby to 

“encourage [various forms of improvement] by all suitable means.” Id.

We discussed this dichotomy between education policy (covered by 

the first division of article IX) and education funding (the subject of the 

second division) at some length in District Township of the City of 

Dubuque v. City of Dubuque, 7 Clarke 262 (1858), decided just a year 

after the adoption of 1857 constitution. There we found unconstitutional 

a wide-ranging law enacted by the general assembly to provide for “the 
19

public instruction of the state of Iowa” on the ground that “[p]ower to 

legislate upon the subject of education, is conferred upon the board [of 

education]” and the legislature can only act in the realm of education 

policy to alter, amend, or repeal the board’s prior acts. Dist. Twp., 7 

Clarke at 271–72, 285–86.9 We emphasized that laws “which provide a 

system of education, sometimes known by the name of ‘school laws’ . . . 

are to originate with the board[,]” whereas laws “for the levying of taxes—

those making appropriations of money—and those for the control and 

management of the educational and school funds and lands—are to be 

passed by the general assembly.” Id. at 286.

A year later, in Clayton County High School v. Clayton County, 9 

Iowa 175 (1859), reinforcing the lesson of the Dubuque case, we held the 

general assembly lacked constitutional authority to establish high 

schools. We specifically rejected the argument that such schools “may 

rightfully be provided for by the General Assembly, to whom is committed 

the duty of encouraging, by all suitable means, the promotion of 

intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement.” Clayton 

Cnty., 9 Iowa at 176. Instead we concluded that these schools were “a 

component part of the educational system of the State; the original 

 9Among the provisions which this court declared unconstitutional was a 

provision for schools segregated on the basis of race. See 1858 Iowa Acts ch. 52, 

§ 30(4). Later, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), we struck down the 

segregated schools of a particular school district. Our decision there was based on 

interpretation of language originally passed by the board of education in 1860 in the 

wake of the Dubuque decision and subsequently reaffirmed on several occasions by the 

legislature. Clark, 24 Iowa at 271–73. The language in question required “the 

instruction of youth between the ages of five and twenty-one years.” Id. at 271. We 

reasoned that this language prohibited the exclusion of persons of color from the 

common schools. Id. at 276. Our opinion cited section 12 of the first division of article 

IX—one of the original constitutional provisions relating to the board—as providing 

authority for the board’s 1860 enactment. Id. at 271. In this case, plaintiffs have not 

cited or relied upon section 12 or any of the other original constitutional provisions in 

the first division relating to the board of education.
20

establishment of which, as well as its subsequent management and 

control, has been committed by the constitution to the Board of 

Education.” Id. at 177. In short, at a time when the 1857 constitution 

was quite fresh in people’s minds, we reached the conclusion that no 

aspect of the Iowa Constitution, including the education clause, 

authorized the legislature to provide for public schools (as opposed to 

merely funding them). Since the contemporary view of our court was 

that the education clause did not even allow the legislature to establish

public schools, it seems difficult for us to conceive that the clause could 

have been seen as a source of enforceable minimum standards for such 

schools.

This interpretation of the education clause as a grant of funding 

authority is further confirmed by section 15 of the first division of article 

IX:

At any time after the year One thousand eight hundred 

and sixty three, the General Assembly shall have power to 

abolish or re-organize said Board of Education, and provide 

for the educational interest of the State in any other manner 

that to them shall seem best and proper.

Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, § 15. In short, section 15 of the first division 

authorized the general assembly to eliminate the board of education at 

any time after 1863 and thereafter provide for “the educational interest of 

the State in any other manner that to them shall seem best and proper.” 

Id. As it turned out, the legislature abolished the board of education at 

the earliest possible opportunity in 1864. See 1864 Iowa Acts ch. 52, 

§ 1.10

 10We are not called upon to decide in this case whether the abolition of the 

board of education gave the legislature plenary authority to address education policy or 

whether that authority is subject to any limits that previously applied to the board of 

education.
21

Placed in context, section 15 reaffirms the dividing line between 

the first division of article IX, which addressed education policy, and the 

second division, which identified funding sources. Section 15 made clear 

that the board of education would control education policy (subject to a 

possible legislative override) until at least 1863, but thereafter the 

legislature could take over that responsibility “in any other manner that 

to them shall seem best and proper.” Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, § 15.

One episode from the 1857 constitutional convention debates also 

suggests that our founders did not intend for section 3 of the second 

division to constrain the general assembly’s authority with respect to 

education policy. On March 3, 1857, George Ells of Davenport proposed 

amending that section to include a guarantee of a free public education. 

Specifically, he sought to add a clause at the end of the section so it 

would read, “shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of common 

schools throughout the state, in which tuition shall be without charge.” 

See 2 The Debates of the Constitutional Convention; of the State of Iowa

968 (W. Blair Lord reporter, Davenport, Luse, Lane & Co. 1857) 

[hereinafter Debates] (emphasis added), available at http://www.state

libraryofiowa.org/services/law-library/iaconst.

Ells’s proposal came under immediate criticism. J.C. Hall of 

Burlington objected that the issue of free public schools should be left “to 

be determined in the future, as the public exigencies may require.” Id. 

A.H. Marvin of Monticello observed:

We should not, in my opinion, be bound by a 

constitutional provision to make our common schools free to 

all, but should let the several districts regulate this matter 

for themselves. If we do that, I will warrant you that poor 

children will never be turned out of our common schools.
22

Id. at 969. Harvey Skiff of Newton commented, “If we should incorporate 

the provision of the gentleman from Scott [Mr. Ells] into our constitution, 

it would become established as organic law, which could not be 

repealed.” Id. Although another delegate (Rufus Clarke of Mt. Pleasant) 

spoke in favor of the amendment, it was quickly defeated by a vote of 

twenty-five to eight. Id. at 970–72.

This exchange indicates the delegates to the 1857 convention did 

not believe that section 3, as it was ultimately approved, contained a 

right to a free public education. And if section 3 did not assure a right to 

a free public education, it seems untenable to argue that section 3

contained a judicially enforceable right to a free public education with 

certain minimum standards of quality. Iowa’s constitutional delegates 

had an opportunity to make a guarantee of free public education part of 

“organic law,” id. at 969, and declined to do so.11

Our decision in Kleen v. Porter lends further support to the view

that the education clause does not constrain legislative policies in the 

field of education. 237 Iowa 1160, 23 N.W.2d 904 (1946). Kleen was a 

declaratory judgment action seeking to have declared unconstitutional 

two laws that appropriated money from the general fund to school 

districts on a targeted basis to reimburse certain transportation expenses 

and bring all districts up to a certain minimum level of per-pupil 

funding. 237 Iowa at 1161, 23 N.W.2d at 905. The petition asserted 

 11Earlier in the convention, Marvin had proposed an amendment that would 

have provided, “And the legislature shall provide for raising funds sufficient so that 

schools shall be kept in each district at least six months in each year, which schools 

shall be free of charge and equally open to all.” 2 Debates, at 825. That amendment 

also was rejected, following a debate that had unfortunate racial overtones. Id. at 825–

30.

Unlike the earlier Marvin amendment, the later Ells amendment was directed to 

section 3 of the second division. There is no indication in the debates that the Ells 

amendment was rejected for racial reasons. Id. at 968–72.
23

that under sections 3 and 7 of the second division of article IX, such 

appropriations could only be made on a uniform statewide basis in 

proportion to the numbers of youths between five and twenty-one years 

old in each district. Id.; see also Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 2, § 7 (“The 

money subject to the support and maintenance of common schools shall 

be distributed to the districts in proportion to the number of youths, 

between the ages of five and twenty-one years, in such manner as may 

be provided by the General Assembly.”).12 We disagreed. We held that 

the enumeration requirement applied only to appropriations from the 

“permanent school fund” established by article IX, division 2, not other 

funding sources. Kleen, 237 Iowa at 1165–66, 23 N.W.2d at 907. We 

construed the first sentence of section 3—“The General Assembly shall 

encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, 

moral, and agricultural improvement”—as designed to give the legislature 

“broad authority” to augment the income from the permanent school 

fund without being subject to the enumeration requirement in section 7. 

Id. at 1166, 23 N.W.2d at 907. Thus, Kleen saw the education clause as 

a grant of broad funding authority to the general assembly.

In sum, given the wording and location of the education clause in 

our constitution, and our prior interpretations of that clause, we do not 

believe plaintiffs have stated a claim thereunder. Plaintiffs’ criticisms of 

state education policy do not amount to a violation of article IX, division 

2, section 3.

It is a well-established principle that the courts will not intervene 

or attempt to adjudicate a challenge to a legislative action involving a 

“political question.” Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. v. Dwyer, 542 

 12This section was repealed by constitutional amendment in 1984.
24

N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1996); see also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 

486, 518, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1962, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491, 515 (1969). The 

nonjusticability of “political questions” is primarily rooted in the 

separation of powers doctrine, “which requires we leave intact the 

respective roles and regions of independence of the coordinate branches 

of government.” Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d at 495 (citations omitted).

The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review 

those controversies which revolve around policy choices and 

value determinations constitutionally committed for 

resolution to the halls of [the General Assembly] or the 

confines of the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is 

particularly ill suited to make such decisions, as courts are 

fundamentally underequipped to formulate [state] policies or 

develop standards for matters not legal in nature.

Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230, 106 S. 

Ct. 2860, 2866, 92 L. Ed. 2d 166, 178 (1986) (citations and internal 

quotations omitted). Nonetheless, the exercise of the judiciary’s power to 

interpret the constitution and to review the constitutionality of the laws 

and acts of the legislature does not offend these principles. Luse v. 

Wray, 254 N.W.2d 324, 327–28 (Iowa 1977); see also Marbury v. 

Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177–78, 2 L. Ed. 60, 73 (1803).

A political question may be found when one or more of the 

following considerations is present:

(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of 

the issue to a coordinate political department; (2) a lack of 

judicially discoverable and manageable standards for 

resolving the issue; (3) the impossibility of deciding without 

an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for 

nonjudicial discretion; (4) the impossibility of a court’s 

undertaking independent resolution without expressing a 

lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; 

(5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a 

political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of 

embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by 

various departments on one question.
25

Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d at 495 (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S. 

Ct. 691, 710, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663, 686 (1962)). Whether a matter involves a 

“political question” is determined on a case-by-case basis and requires 

an examination of the nature of the underlying claim. Id. at 495–96.

A number of these factors might support the conclusion that 

plaintiffs’ claim under the education clause presents a political question. 

To begin with, the text and history of the clause indicate a commitment 

of authority to the general assembly, rather than a constraint upon it. 

The clause says the “General Assembly shall encourage . . . .” Unlike 

most of the clauses in our bill of rights, it is not worded in the negative 

as a prohibition (e.g., “the General Assembly shall not . . .”). See, e.g., 

Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 3–4, 6–9, 11–19, 21, 23–24. Moreover, as noted 

above, the education clause must be read in conjunction with the broad 

policy-making authority conferred by article IX, division 1, section 15, 

which states that the general assembly shall have power after 1863 to 

“provide for the educational interest of the state in any other manner 

that to them shall seem best and proper.” Kinzer v. Dirs. of Indep. Sch. 

Dist., 129 Iowa 441, 444, 105 N.W. 686, 687 (1906) (citing this 

constitutional provision and stating that “the Legislature is expressly 

authorized to provide for the educational interests of the state, in such 

manner as shall seem best and proper”); see also Bunger v. Iowa High 

Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 197 N.W.2d 555, 563 (Iowa 1972) (same).

Second, it is an open question whether the education clause 

contains “judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Dwyer, 

542 N.W.2d at 495. The clause says that the legislature shall 

“encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, 

scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.” Iowa Const. art. IX.,

div. 2, § 3. Are courts to become arbiters of “moral improvement?” How 
26

are judges to decide that children are deficient in their moral upbringing 

and what to do about it? Of course, the clause does not even contain the 

words “schools” or “education.” Does this mean that we as judges can 

order the state to foster moral improvement in adults?13

As we note above, most of the prior challenges to state education 

systems have been, in whole or in part, about funding. Courts are 

accustomed to dealing with questions of financial discrimination. See, 

e.g., State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606, 621–22 (Iowa 2009) (finding a 

denial of equal protection when indigent defendants represented by 

contract attorneys were required to pay more than indigent defendants 

represented by the public defender’s office). But this lawsuit asks the 

courts to enter into a longstanding debate over the merits of state 

mandates versus local control in public education. That may require an 

initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. 

Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d at 495.

Lastly, we consider how other state courts have treated provisions 

in their state constitutions similar to Iowa’s education clause. 

Comparable language appears in the constitutions of California, Indiana, 

and Nevada. Cal. Const. art. IX, § 1 (“[T]he Legislature shall encourage 

by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and 

agricultural improvement.”); Ind. Const. art. 8, § 1 (“[I]t shall be the duty 

of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, 

intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement[.]”); Nev. Const. art. 

11, § 1 (“The legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the 

 13In Dickinson v. Porter, we rejected an equal protection challenge to a state law 

that funded a tax credit for certain agricultural lands. 240 Iowa 393, 35 N.W.2d 66 

(1949). In finding that the law’s classification rested on a reasonable basis, i.e., to 

“benefit and encourage agriculture,” we cited the education clause as an example of a 

state public policy to promote agriculture. Id. at 408–09, 35 N.W.2d at 76. The 

Dickinson case had nothing to do with education.
27

promotion of intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, 

agricultural, and moral improvements[.]”).14 Only in Indiana has the 

state supreme court directly addressed justiciability.

In Bonner ex rel. Bonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516, 518 (Ind. 

2009), a group of Indiana public school students sought a declaratory 

judgment to establish that the Indiana Constitution imposes an 

enforceable duty on state government to provide a standard of quality 

education and that the duty was not being satisfied. Indiana’s 

Constitution provides:

Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a 

community, being essential to the preservation of a free 

government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to

encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, 

scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by 

law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools,

 14The education clauses of the constitutions of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire are not similar to Iowa’s. They employ language that is both more 

forceful and more specific. Connecticut’s clause provides, “There shall always be free 

public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall 

implement this principle by appropriate legislation.” Conn. Const. art. 8, § 1. 

Massachusetts’ clause states:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the 

body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights 

and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and 

advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among 

the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and 

magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the 

interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; 

especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar 

schools in the towns . . . .

Mass. Const. pt. 2 ch. V, § 2 (emphasis added). New Hampshire’s provides:

Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being 

essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the 

opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of 

the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the 

duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this 

government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all 

seminaries and public schools. . .

N.H. Const. pt. 2, art. 83 (emphasis added).
28

wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to 

all.

Ind. Const. art. 8, § 1 (emphasis added). The court noted that the clause 

“expresses two duties”—the first being “general and aspirational,” i.e., to 

encourage moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; 

the second being “more concrete,” i.e., to provide for free public schools 

open to all. Bonner, 907 N.E.2d at 520. In the court’s view “[j]udicial 

enforceability is more plausible as to the second duty than the first.” Id. 

Thus, the court found that this section required the legislature to 

establish free public schools, but “does not impose upon government an 

affirmative duty to achieve any particular standard of resulting 

educational quality. This determination is delegated to the sound 

legislative discretion of the General Assembly.” Id. at 522. Quoting an 

earlier case, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that “ ‘determining 

the components of a public education is left within the authority of the 

legislative branch of government.’ ” Id. at 521–22 (quoting Nagy ex rel. 

Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 844 N.E.2d 481, 491 (Ind. 

2006)).

Asked at oral argument to furnish an example where an education 

clause similar to Iowa’s had been found justiciable, plaintiffs’ counsel 

cited Texas. See Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717,

735–37 (Tex. 1995) (holding that the Texas Constitution contains a 

justiciable standard with respect to education). But the Texas provision 

is worded quite differently: “[I]t shall be the duty of the Legislature of the 

State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and 

maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” Tex. Const. 

art. VII, § 1. Other than the word “suitable,” the two clauses bear little 

similarity. The Texas Constitution expressly requires the support and 
29

maintenance of “an efficient system of public free schools.” Iowa’s 

requires only the “encourage[ment]” of “the promotion of intellectual, 

scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.” Compare Iowa Const. 

art. IX, div. 2, § 3, with Tex. Const. art. VII, § 1. Adding the word 

“suitable” to either clause, or both, does not alter the basic contrast 

between an amorphous goal (“intellectual, scientific, moral, and 

agricultural improvement”) and a more specific one (“the support and 

maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools”). Id.

It bears emphasis that Iowa’s education clause, unlike the 

constitutions of most other states, does not mandate free public 

schools.15 Nor does the education clause require that the state’s public 

 15See Alaska Const. art. VII, § 1 (“The legislature shall by general law establish 

and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State . . . .”); Ariz. 

Const. art. XI, § 1 (“The legislature shall enact such laws as shall provide for the 

establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system . . . .”); 

Ark. Const. art. 14, § 1 (“[T]he State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient 

system of free public schools . . . .”); Colo. Const. art. IX, § 2 (“The general assembly 

shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment and maintenance of a 

thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state . . . .”); Conn. 

Const. art. 8, § 1 (“There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools 

in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate 

legislation.”); Del. Const. art. X, § 1 (“The General Assembly shall provide for the 

establishment and maintenance of a general and efficient system of free public schools 

. . . .”); Fla. Const. art. IX, § 1(a) (“It is . . . a paramount duty of the state to make 

adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. 

Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high 

quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality 

education . . . .”); Ga. Const. art. VIII, § I, para. I (“The provision of an adequate public 

education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public 

education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and 

shall be provided for by taxation.”); Haw. Const. art. X, § 1 (“The State shall provide for 

the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of public schools free from 

sectarian control . . . .”); Idaho Const. art. IX, § 1 (“[I]t shall be the duty of the 

legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system 

of public, free common schools.”); Ill. Const. art. X, § 1 (“The State shall provide for an 

efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education 

in public schools through the secondary level shall be free.”); Ind. Const. art. 8, § 1 (“[I]t 

shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, 

intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a 

general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without 

charge, and equally open to all.”); Kan. Const. art. 6, § 1 (“The legislature shall provide
30

_______________________________

for intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and 

maintaining public schools, educational institutions and related activities which may be 

organized and changed in such manner as may be provided by law.”); Ky. Const. § 183 

(“The General Assembly shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system 

of common schools throughout the State.”); La. Const. art. VIII, § 1 (“The legislature 

shall provide for the education of the people of the state and shall establish and 

maintain a public educational system.”); Me. Const. art. VIII, pt. 1, § 1 (“[T]he 

Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to 

make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of 

public schools . . . .”); Md. Const. art. VIII, § 1 (“The General Assembly, at its First 

Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the 

State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by 

taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”); Mich. Const. art. VIII, § 2 (“The 

legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and 

secondary schools as defined by law.”); Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 1 (“The stability of a 

republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it 

is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public 

schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will 

secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.”); Mo. 

Const. art. IX, § 1(a) (“[T]he general assembly shall establish and maintain free public 

schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in 

excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.”); Mont. Const. art. X, § 1 (“The 

legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary 

schools.”); Neb. Const. art. VII, § 1 (“The Legislature shall provide for the free 

instruction in the common schools of this state of all persons between the ages of five 

and twenty-one years.”); Nev. Const. art. 11, § 2 (“The legislature shall provide for a 

uniform system of common schools, by which a school shall be established and 

maintained in each school district at least six months in every year . . . .”); N.J. Const. 

art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1 (“The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a 

thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the 

children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”); N.M. Const. art. XII, 

§ 1 (“A uniform system of free public schools sufficient for the education of, and open 

to, all the children of school age in the state shall be established and maintained.”); N.Y. 

Const. art. XI, § 1 (“The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a 

system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be 

educated.”); N.C. Const. art. I, § 15 (“The people have a right to the privilege of 

education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right.”); id. art. IX, 

§ 2(1) (“The General Assembly shall provide . . . for a general and uniform system of free 

public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and 

wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.”); N.D. Const. art. 8, § 1 

(“[T]he legislative assembly shall make provision for the establishment and maintenance 

of a system of public schools which shall be open to all children of the state of North 

Dakota and free from sectarian control.”); Ohio Const. art. VI, § 3 (“Provision shall be 

made by law for the organization, administration and control of the public school 

system of the state supported by public funds . . . .”); Or. Const. art. VIII, § 3 (“The 

Legislative Assembly shall provide by law for the establishment of a uniform, and 

general system of Common schools.”); Pa. Const. art. III, § 14 (“The General Assembly 

shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of 

public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.”); S.C. Const. art. XI, § 3 

(“The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of
31

education system be “adequate,” “efficient,” “quality,” “thorough,” or 

“uniform.”16 Our founders did not make these choices.

In the end, though, we need not decide today whether plaintiffs’ 

claims under the education clause present a nonjusticiable political 

question.17 It is sufficient for present purposes to hold that Iowa’s 

_______________________________

free public schools open to all children in the State . . . .”); S.D. Const. art. VIII, § 1 (“[I]t 

shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform 

system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to 

all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and 

opportunities of education.”); Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 12 (“The General Assembly shall 

provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public 

schools.”); Tex. Const. art. VII, § 1 (“A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to 

the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the 

Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and 

maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”); Utah Const. art. X, § 1 (“The 

Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state’s education 

systems including: (a) a public education system, which shall be open to all children of 

the state . . . .”); Vt. Const. ch. II, § 68 (“[A] competent number of schools ought to be 

maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the 

convenient instruction of youth.”); Va. Const. art. VIII, § 1 (“The General Assembly shall 

provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of 

school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an 

educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.”); Wash. 

Const. art. 9, § 1 (“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the 

education of all children residing within its borders . . . .”), § 2 (“The legislature shall 

provide for a general and uniform system of public schools.”); W.Va. Const. art. XII, § 1 

(“The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of 

free schools.”); Wyo. Const. art. 7, § 1 (“The legislature shall provide for the 

establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public 

instruction, embracing free elementary schools of every needed kind and grade . . . .”).

16See Ariz. Const. art. XI, § 1; Ark. Const. art. 14, § 1; Colo. Const. art. IX, § 2; 

Del. Const. art. X, § 1; Fla. Const. art. IX, § 1(a); Ga. Const. art. VIII, § I; Idaho Const. 

art. IX, § 1; Ill. Const. art. X, § 1; Ky. Const. § 183; Md. Const. art. VIII, § 1; Minn. 

Const. art. XIII, § 1; Mont. Const. art. X, § 1(3); Nev. Const. art. 11, § 2; N.J. Const. art. 

VIII, § 4, ¶ 1; N.M. Const. art. XII, § 1; N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1); Or. Const. art. VIII, 

§ 3; Pa. Const. art. III, § 14; Tex. Const. art. VII, § 1; Va. Const. art. VIII, § 1; Wash. 

Const. art. 9, § 2; W.Va. Const. art. XII, § 1; Wyo. Const. art. 7, § 1.

17Although we interpreted the meaning of the education clause in Kleen, that 

does not foreclose the possibility that the claims now before us raise a political 

question. Kleen involved a question of legislative spending authority. 237 Iowa at 1161, 

23 N.W.2d at 905. We interpreted the education clause as a grant of “broad authority” 

to the legislature. Id. at 1166, 23 N.W.2d at 907. This case involves the question 

whether the education clause provides justiciable rights and thus limits the legislature.

There is a political question doctrine in Iowa as elsewhere. See, e.g., Dwyer, 542 

N.W.2d at 495–96; State ex rel. Turner v. Scott, 269 N.W.2d 828, 831–32 (Iowa 1978). 
32

education clause does not afford a basis for relief under the allegations in 

this case.

D. The Equal Protection Clause. We now turn to plaintiffs’ claim 

that the defendants have violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa 

Constitution.18 Article I, section 6 provides:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; 

the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class 

of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same 

terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Iowa Const. art. I, § 6.

_______________________________

Sometimes, “doing our job” involves recognizing that the clause in question delegates

authority to another branch of government. But we defer to another day whether 

claims by public school students and parents under the education clause relating to the 

quality of their education present a nonjusticiable political question.

18We have regularly referred to article I, section 6 as the “equal protection 

clause” of the Iowa Constititution. See, e.g., Rojas v. Pine Ridge Farms, L.L.C., 779 

N.W.2d 223, 229 (Iowa 2010); War Eagle Vill. Apartments v. Plummer, 775 N.W.2d 714, 

723 (Iowa 2009); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 872 (Iowa 2009); State v. Wade, 757 

N.W.2d 618, 621 (Iowa 2008); State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 2008); 

Timberland Partners XXI, LLP v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 757 N.W.2d 172, 173–74 (Iowa 

2008); Houck v. Iowa Bd. of Pharmacy Exam’rs, 752 N.W.2d 14, 21 (Iowa 2008); In re 

Det. of Hennings, 744 N.W.2d 333, 338–39 (Iowa 2008); Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n v. City 

of Ames, 736 N.W.2d 255, 261 (Iowa 2007); In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 

2004). On a few occasions, none more recent than 2001, we have referred to it as the 

“privileges and immunities clause.” See Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d 58, 

71 (Iowa 2001); Utilicorp United Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 570 N.W.2d 451, 455 (Iowa 1997); 

Bennett v. City of Redfield, 446 N.W.2d 467, 474 (Iowa 1989); Koch v. Kostichek, 409 

N.W.2d 680, 683 (Iowa 1987).

While labels should not affect the underlying analysis, it is important to 

recognize that article I, section 6, like the Federal Equal Protection Clause, deals with 

equality and uniformity—i.e., laws “of a general nature” having “a uniform operation” 

and the legislature not granting privileges to a citizen or class of citizens that “upon the 

same terms [do] not equally belong to all citizens.” In this respect, it resembles the 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By the 

same token, it differs dramatically from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which by its terms protects certain 

privileges and immunities of “citizens of the United States” from being abridged by the 

states. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and 

Immunities Clause shields certain rights of national citizenship from state interference. 

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 501–504, 119 S. Ct. 1518, 1525–27, 143 L. Ed. 2d 689, 

704–05 (1999).
33

At the outset, we do not agree with the district court’s conclusion 

that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim presents a nonjusticiable political 

question. Typically, we decide claims brought by individuals who allege 

denial of their constitutional right to equal protection, even when the 

claim pertains to an area where the legislative branch has been vested 

with considerable authority. See, e.g., Luse, 254 N.W.2d at 328 (holding 

that an equal protection challenge to a general assembly election contest 

was justiciable notwithstanding the authority conferred by article III,

section 7 to each house to determine such matters). Equal protection 

jurisprudence has a set of standards that we have applied in the past. 

Cf. Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d at 495 (discussing the elements of a 

nonjusticiable political question and treating a “lack of judicially 

discoverable and manageable standards” as one such element).19 We 

therefore turn to the merits of plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.

We begin our discussion with Exira Community School District v. 

State, 512 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 1994), a case where we previously 

confronted both an equal protection and a substantive due process 

challenge relating to education (and reached the merits of the challenge). 

In that case, the Exira Community School District and Exira parenttaxpayers and students sued to invalidate a provision of the state’s open 

enrollment statute20 that required the school district of residence to pay 

tuition to the district into which the student had open enrolled. Exira, 

512 N.W.2d at 789–90. About ten percent of students living in the Exira 

 19We are not holding that a claim under the equal protection clause can never 

present a nonjusticiable political question. See, e.g., Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 

281–306, 125 S. Ct. 1769, 1778–92, 158 L. Ed. 2d 546, 560–76 (2004) (stating the view 

of four Justices that partisan gerrymandering claims under the Federal Equal 

Protection Clause and other U.S. constitutional provisions constitute a nonjusticiable 

political question).

20The provision is now found at Iowa Code section 282.18(7).
34

district had open enrolled into another, larger school district (Audubon). 

Id. at 789. Because the financing mechanism required Exira to transfer 

funds, this had resulted in a substantial shortfall in available spending 

for the remaining Exira students and “financial trouble for the district.” 

Id. at 793–94. Although we found the Exira district itself lacked 

standing, id. at 790, we reached the merits of the equal protection and 

substantive due process challenges brought by the parent-taxpayers and 

students under both the U.S. and the Iowa Constitutions. We 

summarized their complaints as follows:

They believe the financing mechanism in section 282.18(8) is 

unreasonable because it requires a transfer of locally 

generated tax revenues without a showing of need. What the 

appellants want is a financing scheme that would require a 

showing that the receiving district “needs” the tax dollars 

more than the sending district. Otherwise—the appellants 

argue—a significant loss of students could ultimately destroy 

a sending district.

. . . .

Appellants’ complaint boils down to this. Before open 

enrollment, the state had achieved through the financing 

formula educational equality for every student in Iowa. 

During the first year of open enrollment, Exira experienced a 

$70,000 loss in tax revenues necessary to educate the 

students remaining in the Exira school district. This 

resulted in a substantial disparity in funds available for 

education between Exira and Audubon. This disparity has 

disturbed the educational equality previously existing.

Id. at 793–94.

Significantly, the plaintiffs in Exira did not allege that the statute 

in question infringed upon a fundamental right. Id. at 793. Thus, for 

both equal protection and substantive due process purposes, we applied 

the rational basis test. Id. Quoting an earlier case, we held that when a 

statute bears “ ‘a definite, rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,’ ” 

it must be allowed to stand. Id. (quoting Kent v. Polk Cnty. Bd. of 
35

Supervisors, 391 N.W.2d 220, 225 (Iowa 1986)). This is true even if the 

reasonableness of the nexus to the purported end is only “ ‘fairly 

debatable.’ ” Id. Further, the challenging party must negate every 

reasonable basis upon which the statute may be sustained. Id.

Applying the rational basis test, we found that the financing 

mechanism “easily passes constitutional muster” because open 

enrollment results in greater access to educational opportunities and the 

legislature’s chosen method of financing open enrollment “maintains per 

pupil equity.” Id. at 795. Regarding the parent-taxpayers’ “relative need” 

argument, i.e., that the Exira district needed the money it was 

transferring to Audubon in order to survive, we commented, “In the final 

analysis, the appellants’ relative need argument is really all about a 

school district’s alleged due process right to exist.” Id. We then 

responded to this argument as follows:

If it chooses to do so, the legislature can—without 

constitutional impediment—terminate a school district’s 

existence. And when the legislature enacted open 

enrollment legislation, it knew full well that its ultimate 

effect might mean the demise of some smaller schools. 

Despite this knowledge, the legislature made a policy 

decision—right or wrong—to go with open enrollment. It is 

not for us to judge the wisdom of such a policy. That was a 

legislative call.

In yielding the call to the legislative branch of 

government, we are not insensitive to the feelings and 

strongly-held views of patrons of smaller schools, such as 

the Exira school. We recognize that individuals and families 

sense a way of life is in the balance and vehemently 

challenge any assumption that centralization of schools 

improves the quality of education. The proper forum for this 

debate is however not in the courts, but in the other 

branches of state government. Our clear duty is to interpret 

and apply the law given to us, and not to develop or choose 

among schemes for public education.

Id. at 795–96.
36

At the end of our opinion, we turned specifically to the due process 

and equal protection claims of the Exira students. We rejected their 

substantive due process claim, observing, “We know of no authority that 

says a student’s desire to be educated in a certain school district [i.e., 

Exira] rises to the level of a right protected by due process.” Id. at 796. 

We added that a student has “a due process right to an adequate 

education,” but noted, “That right—as we have demonstrated [in our 

previous rational basis analysis]—is furthered, not diminished, by the 

funding mechanism in section 282.18(8).” Id. We also overruled the 

students’ equal protection challenge, stating: “Nor do we think such 

students are treated differently for equal protection purposes. We say 

this because section 282.18(8) assures every student roughly the same 

amount of funds for his or her education wherever that student is 

educated.” Id. In short, we concluded that the statute “does indeed have 

a rational basis,” which “disposes of” both the equal protection and the 

substantive due process challenges. Id.

We believe several lessons can be drawn from Exira. First, we 

recognized that students have a due process right to an adequate 

education, although we did not characterize it as a fundamental right. 

Id. at 796. (The plaintiffs did not allege that a fundamental right was at 

issue in their case, id. at 793, and we accepted that position for purposes 

of our decision.) Second, we held there is no due process right to be 

educated in a particular school district. Id. at 796. Third, we found a 

funding mechanism that assured roughly the same amount of per-pupil 

funding regardless of the district did not treat students differently or 

violate equal protection. Id. Finally, we expressed the view that debates 

over whether “centralization of schools improves the quality of education” 

belonged in the legislature and not the courts. Id. at 795–96.
37

As an initial matter, we note that any equal protection claim, 

whether in the education context or elsewhere, requires an allegation of 

disparate treatment, not merely disparate impact. Indeed, plaintiffs’ 

counsel conceded as much at oral argument. To allege a viable equal 

protection claim, plaintiffs must allege that the defendants are treating 

similarly situated persons differently. Thus, in State v. Wade, we 

rejected an argument that a special sentence for both felony and 

misdemeanor sex offenders violated equal protection. 757 N.W.2d 618, 

625 (Iowa 2008). We explained, “Even though Wade has identified two 

classes that are similarly situated, Wade’s equal protection argument 

fails because . . . offenders who commit serious misdemeanor sex crimes 

and offenders who commit felony sex crimes are not treated differently.” 

Id.; see also Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n v. City of Ames, 736 N.W.2d 255, 

259 (Iowa 2007) (plaintiffs met this threshold by alleging that tenants 

who were related and tenants who were unrelated received differential 

treatment); Montoy v. State, 120 P.3d 306, 308 (Kan. 2005) (holding that 

“disparate impact” of Kansas’s school financing scheme on minorities 

and other classes could not establish an equal protection violation).

A related way of saying the same thing is to point out that equal 

protection claims require “state action.” Disparate treatment by someone 

other than the state (which the state, because of its inaction, failed to 

prevent) generally does not amount to an equal protection violation. See 

Principal Cas. Ins. Co. v. Blair, 500 N.W.2d 67, 69–70 (Iowa 1993) 

(holding that the presence of an allegedly discriminatory family insurance 

clause in a private insurance policy did not violate either the Federal or 
38

the State Equal Protection Clause because this was “not an action of the 

state”).21

But as we have noted above, the petition contains no allegations of 

disparate treatment. Plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants have 

allocated fewer funds to students attending school districts like West 

Harrison, Davenport, and Des Moines, or that they have imposed 

different rules or requirements with respect to those districts. Plaintiffs’ 

theory, rather, is that the defendants have not taken sufficient 

affirmative steps to eliminate perceived differences in outcomes, e.g., 

gaps in average student achievement, teacher experience level, and the 

like. One can describe that theory in various ways, but it is not an 

allegation of disparate treatment by these defendants. See, e.g., City of 

Coralville v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 750 N.W.2d 523, 530–31 (Iowa 2008) 

(rejecting an equal protection challenge to a utility law that applied 

equally to all communities but with different results in different locales 

on the ground that it was “in substance a misplaced argument for 

uniformity of consequences rather than uniformity of operation”).22 For 

this reason, plaintiffs’ equal protection claim was properly dismissed.

 21This is not imposing an “intent” requirement. We are not saying the State 

needs to have intentionally discriminated against students from West Harrison, or 

Davenport, or Des Moines, for example. But the State must have done something that 

treats these students differently from other students, as opposed to merely having failed 

to enact statewide standards and requirements favored by the plaintiffs. In a disparate 

funding case, the unequal funding can itself constitute the denial of equal protection, 

but plaintiffs do not allege there are any discrepancies of funding in Iowa.

22Plaintiffs allege that they are being denied “equal access” to education, but 

these catchwords obscure a critical point. Nothing in the petition alleges that the 

defendants (i.e., the state government and state officials of Iowa) have passed any law, 

adopted any regulation, or undertaken any measure that treats students differently 

from one district to another. To the contrary, plaintiffs fault the defendants for not 

implementing statewide standards that would affirmatively eradicate district-to-district 

differences—e.g., in average student performance or average teacher qualification. 

“Failure to equalize differences” is not the same as treating people differently.
39

Even if we could discern some allegation of disparate treatment in 

plaintiffs’ allegations, we would still not be persuaded that they have 

stated a claim. Unless a suspect class or a fundamental right is at issue, 

equal protection claims are reviewed under the rational basis test. 

Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 817. Plaintiffs do not allege that a suspect class 

is involved, but they claim that education is a fundamental right. For 

purposes of federal constitutional analysis, education is not a 

fundamental right. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

1, 35, 93 S. Ct. 1273, 1297, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 44 (1973); see also Plyler v. 

Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2398, 72 L. Ed. 2d 786, 803 

(1982) (“Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by 

compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is 

provided to its population.”).

This does not control the analysis under the Iowa Constitution. 

True, in Exira, we quoted from Rodriguez and relied on its reasoning. 

Exira, 512 N.W.2d at 794–95. In discussing that decision, we said, 

“Although important, education is not a fundamental right.” Id. at 794. 

But as we have noted, the Exira plaintiffs were not maintaining that the 

challenged law intruded upon a fundamental right. Id. at 793. Thus, we 

believe it remains an open question whether education is a fundamental 

right under the Iowa Constitution.

We have recently said,

[N]either this court nor the Supreme Court has created a 

clear test for determining whether the claimed right is a 

fundamental right. . . . [O]nly rights and liberties that are 

objectively “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and 

tradition’ ” and “ ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ” 

qualify as fundamental.

Hensler v. City of Davenport, 790 N.W.2d 569, 581 (Iowa 2010) (citation 

omitted) (quoting Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 775, 123 S. Ct. 
40

1994, 2005, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984, 999 (2003)); accord Seering, 701 N.W.2d 

at 664 (declining to hold freedom of choice in residence to be a 

fundamental right even though it is “of keen interest to any individual”). 

Fundamental rights are generally those explicitly or implicitly contained 

in the Constitution. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 218 n.15, 102 S. Ct. at 2395 

n.15, 72 L. Ed. 2d at 799 n.15; Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 817. We have 

traditionally followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in determining 

which rights are deemed fundamental. Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 664; In re 

Det. of Cubbage, 671 N.W.2d 442, 447 (Iowa 2003). “Fundamental right” 

for purposes of constitutional review is not a synonym for “important.” 

Many important interests, such as the right to choose one’s residence or 

the right to drive a vehicle, do not qualify as fundamental rights. See 

Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 664; Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 817.

In Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 608–09 (1971), the California 

Supreme Court relied on California’s similarly worded education clause 

as one—but by no means the only—supporting consideration for its 

conclusion that education was a fundamental right under the California 

Constitution. Article IX, section 1 of the California Constitution is 

entitled “Encouragement of education” and reads in its entirety as 

follows:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being 

essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the 

people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means 

the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and 

agricultural improvement.

Cal. Const. art. IX, § 1.

While California apparently borrowed some of this wording from 

the Iowa Constitution, see Crosby v. Lyon, 37 Cal. 242, 245 (1869), its 

education clause is essentially a stand-alone provision. In Iowa, by 
41

contrast, the education clause is the first sentence of a funding section 

entitled “Perpetual support fund” that, in turn, falls within a series of 

funding provisions. Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 2, § 3.

Contrasting with the reasoning of the California Supreme Court is 

that of the Indiana Supreme Court. In Bonner, the court affirmed the 

dismissal of the plaintiffs’ state equal protection and due process claims, 

determining that there was no fundamental constitutional right to an 

adequate public education in Indiana. 907 N.E.2d at 522. The court 

reached this result despite the presence of an education clause similar to 

Iowa’s in the Indiana Constitution. The court noted that the clause “does 

not speak in terms of a right or entitlement to education” and that the 

Indiana Bill of Rights contains no reference to education. Id. The same 

is true in Iowa. The “Bill of Rights” and “Right of Suffrage” in the Iowa 

Constitution make no mention of education. See Iowa Const. arts. I, II.

We defer to another day the question whether education can

amount to a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution, thereby 

triggering heightened scrutiny. For present purposes, we conclude 

simply that the matters alleged in plaintiffs’ petition, even if true, do not 

amount to a deprivation of such a right. In Hensler, we recently 

acknowledged there is a fundamental parental right to exercise care, 

custody, and control over children. 790 N.W.2d at 581–82. Yet not all 

alleged infringements upon this right trigger strict scrutiny. Id. at 582. 

Rather, we required in Hensler that the challenged governmental action 

“directly and substantially intrude into [the parent’s] decision-making 

authority over her child.” Id. at 583. Similarly here, even if we assume 

there is a fundamental right to a basic education at some level, the 

plaintiffs’ allegations do not show a denial of that right. No plaintiff 

alleges anything specific to his or her (or his or her child’s) own actual 
42

education. Rather, their allegations are largely a hodgepodge of 

statistics. Some of these numbers relate to Iowa’s performance as a state 

and show a deterioration or decline in Iowa’s ranking or a below-average 

score. Others relate to ACT scores, reading proficiency, and math 

proficiency ratings in the Davenport, Des Moines, or West Harrison 

school districts. These data, in the plaintiffs’ view, demonstrate the need 

for more statewide standards and requirements. But even if all true, 

they do not amount to a deprivation of a fundamental right as to these 

plaintiffs.

In Exira, we commented that the proper forum for debate over 

school centralization is “not in the courts, but in the other branches of 

state government.” 512 N.W.2d at 796. In a way, this case involves 

another phase of the same debate. These plaintiffs want greater 

centralization–—“state-mandated standards,” state-mandated “specific 

testing of students at various educational levels in a variety of subject 

matters,” and a state-mandated “professional pay system for educators.”

Because in this particular case the allegations do not show a 

deprivation of a fundamental right, even if we assume there is a 

fundamental right to education at some level, we apply the rational basis 

test. In previous discussions of both the Federal and the Iowa Equal 

Protection Clause, we have found a rational basis review applies when 

“ ‘social or economic legislation is at issue.’ ” Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 

817 (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 

105 S. Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313, 320 (1985)). This is when “ ‘the 

Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude, and the 

Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be 

rectified by the democratic processes.’ ” Id.; accord Midwest Check 
43

Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 404–05 (Iowa 2007); Asmus v. 

Waterloo Cmty. Sch. Dist., 722 N.W.2d 653, 658 (Iowa 2006).

The rational basis test is a “deferential standard.” Ames Rental 

Prop. Ass’n, 736 N.W.2d at 259. Under this test, we must determine 

whether the classification is “rationally related to a legitimate 

governmental interest.” Id. The classification is valid “unless the 

relationship between the classification and the purpose behind it is so 

weak the classification must be viewed as arbitrary or capricious.” Id. 

The government is not required or expected to produce evidence to justify 

its action. Id. To the contrary, the plaintiff “must negate every 

reasonable basis upon which the classification may be sustained.” 

Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579–80 (Iowa 1980); see also State 

v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207, 213 (Iowa 2008); Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n, 

736 N.W.2d at 259.

Depending on the circumstances, a rational basis challenge can be 

resolved on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 817–

20 (affirming the dismissal of equal protection and due process claims 

brought by undocumented aliens challenging the state’s refusal to issue 

driver’s licenses); Johnston v. Veterans’ Plaza Auth., 535 N.W.2d 131, 

131–32 (Iowa 1995) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim and rejecting 

plaintiff’s contention that the thirty-day appeal timeframe contained in 

the statutory right to appeal a condemnation appraisement violated 

equal protection and due process because plaintiff “does not rebut” the 

possible basis for the distinction suggested by the defendant, “nor does 

he attempt to negate any other rational basis for the distinction”); Gard v. 

Little Sioux Intercounty Drainage Dist., 521 N.W.2d 696, 698–99 (Iowa 

1994) (affirming the dismissal of a negligence action against drainage 

district including claim that immunity for district amounted to a denial 
44

of equal protection); Seivert v. Resnick, 342 N.W.2d 484, 485 (Iowa 1984) 

(affirming the grant of motion to dismiss by applying the rational basis 

test to reject a claim that an Iowa statute impermissibly distinguished 

among tortfeasors). Since the State does not have to produce evidence, 

and only a “plausible” justification is required, see Ames Rental Prop. 

Ass’n, 736 N.W.2d at 259, there are certainly occasions where a rational 

basis test can be applied on the pleadings without taking evidence. In 

this case, unless the well-pleaded facts (if true) would show that Iowa’s 

educational system is not rationally related to a legitimate state goal, 

there is no reason for the case to proceed further.

Disregarding plaintiffs’ legal conclusions (for example, that Iowa’s 

education system is “irrational, arbitrary and capricious” or that the 

defendants have failed to provide an “effective education”),23 we are left 

with the following allegations: (1) Iowa has fewer state standards and 

requirements than other states (although it has some); (2) Iowa’s schools 

have a mediocre national ranking on some measures according to some 

sources; (3) the smaller school districts in Iowa on average have less 

experienced and credentialed teachers and offer fewer classes; (4) three 

districts (Davenport, Des Moines, and West Harrison) have substantial 

percentages of students who are not demonstrating proficiency in 

reading and math according to certain standardized tests; and (5) one 

district (West Harrison) does not do a good job of preparing students for 

college. Plaintiffs attribute the last four points to the first—that is, they 

blame the lack of state-mandated standards in various areas for the 

undistinguished rankings on certain national score charts and the 

 23If there is a constitutional right to an “effective education,” then alleging that 

the defendants have failed to provide such an education amounts to a mere legal 

conclusion.
45

concerns noted with respect to smaller and larger school districts. But 

for purposes of the rational basis test, we need only find a reasonable 

relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See, e.g., Comm. for Educ. 

Rights, 672 N.E.2d at 1196 (affirming dismissal of complaint on this 

ground after applying rational basis test and finding Illinois’s system for 

funding public education rationally related to the legitimate state 

purpose of local control).

We can conceive of a rational basis for the set of circumstances 

described by plaintiffs. The Iowa legislature may have decided that local 

school board autonomy is preferable in certain instances to state 

mandates. The legislature may also have concluded that it is more 

equitable to provide an equal or roughly equal amount of resources to 

each state school district, on a per capita basis, and then give those 

school districts the primary responsibility for determining how that 

money will be spent. See Iowa Code § 257.1(2) (providing that “each 

school district in the state is entitled to receive foundation aid in an 

amount per pupil equal to the difference between the per pupil 

foundation tax . . . and the combined foundation base per pupil or the 

combined district cost per pupil, whichever is less”). The legislature may 

also have decided that it is important to preserve school districts in rural 

areas, even though the smaller size of those districts may not allow them 

to offer the same kinds of programs as larger districts. The legislature 

may have determined that time spent on standardized testing of

students—and preparation for such tests—detracts from time spent in 

other areas of learning. Additionally, the legislature may have decided 

that school districts in Iowa are aware of their students’ math and 

reading proficiency rates, but have many other pressing concerns, and 
46

that it would be best to defer to the judgment of local administrators 

regarding the areas that require the most attention.

Local control, equity in per-pupil funding, maintenance of existing 

rural school districts, and conservation of scarce classroom time and 

resources are all legitimate governmental interests. As claimed interests, 

they are “realistically conceivable.” Miller v. Boone Cnty. Hosp., 394 

N.W.2d 776, 779 (Iowa 1986). Furthermore, the policies decried by the 

plaintiffs are at least rationally connected to these goals. While 

acknowledging the undeniable importance of education, our court has 

previously characterized it as an area where there is no true consensus 

and where needs change over time. Thus, we have said that “education 

is defined as a broad and comprehensive term with a variable and 

indefinite meaning.” In re Petty, 241 Iowa 506, 511, 41 N.W.2d 672, 675 

(1950). We have also observed:

The establishment and the maintenance of an educational 

system through public schools is an indispensable obligation 

and function of the State of Iowa. It should be so 

maintained as to keep abreast with progress generally, and 

to meet the needs of the times. This applies not only to the 

courses of study but also to the teaching force. The policy 

with respect to either should not be an inflexible one.

Talbott v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Des Moines, 230 Iowa 949, 967, 299 N.W. 

556, 565 (1941). We cannot say that any state classification scheme 

identified by the petition is so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional.24

 24In Midwest Check Cashing, Inc., the plaintiff brought an equal protection 

challenge to a state law that limited payday loans but allegedly did not limit them 

enough. 728 N.W.2d at 403 (“these limitations are not as protective as Richey would 

like”). We expressed “serious[] doubt” that the plaintiff had shown sufficient state 

action for equal protection or substantive due process purposes or that she had been 

sufficiently classified for equal protection purposes. Id. at 404 n.6. In any event, we 

found the law met the rational basis test. Id. at 404–05. This case is somewhat 

similar, in that plaintiffs are complaining about the state’s failure to act, not state action 

itself. As we have already discussed, we do not believe the petition alleges actual 

disparate treatment by the state government as is necessary for an equal protection 
47

In Racing Association of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI), 675 

N.W.2d 1, 15–16 (2004), we held that a statute taxing gross gambling 

receipts from racetracks at a rate nearly twice the rate imposed on gross 

gambling receipts from riverboats violated the Iowa equal protection 

clause. We find RACI readily distinguishable here. As noted, the 

plaintiffs do not point to anything the defendants have allegedly done to 

treat one group of Iowans different from another. Even if disparate 

treatment were alleged, RACI still only requires that the purported 

rational basis be “realistically conceivable” and have a “basis in fact”; it 

explicitly “does not require ‘proof’ in the traditional sense.” RACI, 675 

N.W.2d at 7–8 & n.4 (quoting Miller, 394 N.W.2d at 779). Providing equal 

resources to school districts while allowing those districts the 

independence to determine many aspects of educational policy is not 

merely “realistically conceivable” as a legislative purpose, it is the same 

legislative purpose we upheld in Exira.

RACI has not been the death knell for traditional rational basis 

review. Since RACI was decided, we have continued to uphold legislative 

classifications based on judgments the legislature could have made, 

without requiring evidence or “proof” in either a traditional or a 

nontraditional sense. See Judicial Branch v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 800 N.W.2d 

569, 578–79 (Iowa 2011) (holding it was constitutional to remove 

deferred judgments but not dismissals and acquittals from the public 

docket and stating that “[t]he legislature could rationally determine that 

deferred judgments should not be accessible to the public but dismissals 

and acquittals should be”); State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 438–39 

(Iowa 2008) (upholding a law that distinguished between married and 

_______________________________

claim, but even if it did, the facts alleged do not demonstrate the absence of a rational 

basis.
48

unmarried sex offenders and finding that “[t]he legislature could have 

reasonably determined its chosen classification scheme, which 

differentiates between cohabitants who are married and those who are 

unmarried, would rationally advance the government objective of 

protecting children from sex offenders”); Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n, 736 

N.W.2d at 259 (upholding an ordinance limiting the number of unrelated 

persons who could live in a house because “[t]he City is not required or 

expected to produce evidence to justify its legislative action”).

While some members of this court have dissented from some of 

those decisions, claiming they are inconsistent with RACI, see Mitchell, 

757 N.W.2d at 442 (Wiggins, J., dissenting), Ames Rental Property Ass’n, 

736 N.W.2d at 264 (Wiggins, J., dissenting), they are precedents of this 

court. In fact, since RACI was decided, we have considered rational basis 

equal protection challenges under the Iowa Constitution many times and 

upheld such a challenge only once. See Dudley, 766 N.W.2d at 620–24 

(upholding a rational basis challenge to the state’s reimbursement laws 

for indigent defense without affording either side an opportunity to 

present evidence). But see Timberland Partners XXI, LLP v. Iowa Dep’t of 

Revenue, 757 N.W.2d 172, 175–77 (Iowa 2008) (rejecting an equal 

protection challenge to an administrative rule providing that apartments 

would be taxed at a higher commercial rate and condominiums at a 

lower residential rate even if both were used for the same commercial 

purposes); State v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207, 213–14 (Iowa 2008) (finding 

residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders do not violate equal 

protection); City of Coralville, 750 N.W.2d at 530–31 (Iowa 2008) 

(rejecting equal protection challenge to a tariff system); In re Det. of 

Hennings, 744 N.W.2d 333, 339–40 (Iowa 2008) (finding no equal 

protection violation in denying a right to a bench trial in a sexually 
49

violent predator proceeding but not a criminal case); Midwest Check 

Cashing, Inc., 728 N.W.2d at 404–05 (finding a rational basis for different 

treatment of payday loans); Asmus, 722 N.W.2d at 658 (rejecting an 

equal protection challenge to a higher standard for legal causation in 

workers’ compensation mental injury cases); State v. Simmons, 714 

N.W.2d 264, 276–78 (Iowa 2006) (holding that making only defendants 

who plead guilty eligible for a certain reduction in sentence does not 

violate equal protection); Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 817–19 (holding that 

denying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens does not violate equal 

protection); Claude v. Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co., 679 N.W.2d 659, 664–66 (Iowa

2004) (holding the statutory distinction between hit-and-run and missand-run vehicles for purposes of mandatory uninsured motorist coverage 

did not violate equal protection).

E. Substantive Due Process. Plaintiffs also allege the defendants 

have violated the due process clause of the Iowa Constitution, which 

provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 

without due process of law.” Iowa Const. art. I, § 9. For the reasons 

already discussed with respect to equal protection, we believe plaintiffs’ 

substantive due process claim is justiciable. We have a familiar 

analytical framework under which to analyze such claims, and we have 

reached the merits of such a claim in the field of education before. See 

Exira, 512 N.W.2d at 793–96.

Substantive due process prevents the government “ ‘from engaging 

in conduct that shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in 

the concept of ordered liberty.’ ” Zaber v. City of Dubuque, 789 N.W.2d 

634, 640 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 647 

(Iowa 2006)); State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 237 (Iowa 

2002). With a substantive due process claim, we follow a two-stage 
50

analysis. Hensler, 790 N.W.2d at 580. First, we determine the nature of 

the individual right involved, then the appropriate level of scrutiny. Id. If 

the right at issue is fundamental, strict scrutiny applies; otherwise, the 

state only has to satisfy the rational basis test. Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 

819–20. When the rational basis test applies, there need only be a 

“reasonable fit” between the legislature’s purpose and the means chosen 

to advance that purpose. Zaber, 789 N.W.2d at 640. We have said that 

“ ‘[t]he doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the 

utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in th[e] field [of 

substantive due process].’ ” Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 819 (quoting Reno 

v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302, 113 S. Ct. 1439, 1447, 123 L. Ed. 2d 1, 16 

(1993)).

As we have already noted, the petition does not allege wrongful 

acts by the defendants. Instead, it asserts the defendants’ inaction has 

infringed upon plaintiffs’ rights. Generally, plaintiffs allege the State and 

its officials have failed to establish sufficient state-wide standards or 

failed to enforce and utilize such standards. Yet this court has indicated 

the purpose of substantive due process is to protect citizens when the 

government engages in actual conduct (i.e., governmental action) that 

infringes or interferes with rights. In re Det. of Hennings, 744 N.W.2d at

337 (“Governmental action violates principles of substantive due process 

when . . . .”); Atwood, 725 N.W.2d at 647 (“Substantive due process 

principles preclude the government ‘from engaging in conduct . . . .’ ”

(citation omitted)); Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 819 (“Substantive due 

process ‘ “provides heightened protection against government 

interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” ’ ”

(quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 

L. Ed. 2d 49, 56 (2000))); Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d at 238 (“We 
51

must then determine whether the government action infringing . . . .”). 

We have previously expressed “serious doubt” about the viability of a 

substantive due process theory based on the notion that the government 

failed to act. Midwest Check Cashing, Inc., 728 N.W.2d at 404 n.6.

Regardless, there is an additional reason why we conclude 

plaintiffs have not alleged facts that, if true, would amount to a denial of 

substantive due process. As we have already pointed out, we are not 

deciding today whether there is a fundamental right to a basic education 

embraced within the Iowa Constitution. If there is such a right, the 

plaintiffs have not alleged that they have been deprived of it. Therefore, 

the rational basis test applies.

Typically, when the rational basis test is involved, we evaluate that 

basis similarly for equal protection and due process purposes. Midwest 

Check Cashing, Inc., 728 N.W.2d at 405; Sanchez, 692 N.W.2d at 820 

(concluding that “[f]or the reasons discussed in the equal protection 

analysis,” a statute meets the rational basis test and does not violate 

substantive due process). For the rational basis test to be met, there 

need only be a reasonable fit between the governmental interest and the 

means utilized to advance that interest. The legislature need not employ 

the best means of achieving that interest. Hensler, 790 N.W.2d at 584. 

The plaintiff by contrast must negate every reasonable basis upon which 

the government’s act may be sustained. Zaber, 789 N.W.2d at 640.

Our decision in Exira illustrates how the rational basis test works 

in practice. Applying that test, we found the financing provision of the 

open enrollment statute to be constitutional because it gave “access to 

educational opportunities” even though “its ultimate effect might mean 

the demise of some smaller schools.” Exira, 512 N.W.2d at 795–96. “It is 

not for us to judge the wisdom of such a policy. That was a legislative 
52

call.” Id. at 795. “Our clear duty is to interpret and apply the law given 

to us, and not to develop or choose among schemes for public 

education.” Id. at 796. In other words, the possibility that the financing 

provision could be counterproductive and lead to fewer educational 

opportunities (due to “the demise of some smaller schools”) was not 

relevant to a rational basis analysis.

For the reasons already discussed under equal protection, we 

believe the plaintiffs have not alleged facts that if true would establish a 

substantive due process violation. They have alleged certain aspects of 

Iowa’s K–12 educational performance, by some criteria, are mediocre or 

even below national averages. They have alleged Iowa has fewer 

statewide standards than other states. They have alleged some urban 

(Davenport and Des Moines) and rural (West Harrison) districts offer 

fewer services or, on average, have less favorable educational outcomes 

than other districts. These allegations undoubtedly raise important and 

legitimate concerns for education policymakers to consider. But they do 

not “shock the conscience” as representing abusive governmental 

conduct. See State ex rel. Miller v. Smokers Warehouse Corp., 737 

N.W.2d 107, 111 (Iowa 2007) (stating that substantive due process “ ‘is 

reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or 

property rights’ ” (quoting Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of W. Des 

Moines, 636 N.W.2d 255, 265 (Iowa 2001))). According to the 2007 

Department of Education report cited by plaintiffs in their petition, for 

2005–06, Iowa ranked 37th nationally in per-pupil spending, rated 

substantially above the national average in NAEP fourth and eighth 

grade reading and mathematics achievement, and rated substantially 

above the national average in SAT and AP test scores. The Annual 

Condition of Education at 196, 201, 205, 245. Again, these statistics 
53

warrant consideration by education policymakers, but they do not rise to 

the level of a constitutional violation. We conclude that plaintiffs have 

not stated a claim for deprivation of substantive due process based on 

the defendants’ alleged failure to do more to advance the cause of public 

education in this state.25

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, we emphasize 

again that this is not a case involving alleged disparities in education 

funding. Rather, the plaintiffs allege the defendants have a 

constitutional duty—enforceable by Iowa’s judiciary—to improve the 

quality of the education they are receiving. In the relatively few instances 

where such quality-based claims have been asserted and have advanced 

past a motion to dismiss in other states, that has occurred because the 

state’s founders enshrined a particular educational mandate in the state 

constitution. Thus, in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education

Funding v. Rell, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on a state 

constitutional provision guaranteeing a right to “free public elementary 

and secondary schools in the state.” 990 A.2d 206, 212 n.1 (Conn. 2010) 

(quoting Conn. Const. art. 8, § 1). As we have discussed, Iowa’s 

delegates voted down an analogous provision in 1857. Similarly, in Rose

v. Council for Better Education, Inc., the Kentucky Supreme Court noted 

 25We believe the only relevant due process concept here is one of substantive 

due process, not procedural due process. Procedural due process requires that certain 

procedures be afforded (e.g., notice and an opportunity to be heard) before the 

government deprives a citizen of a liberty or property interest. Smokers Warehouse 

Corp., 737 N.W.2d at 111. The plaintiffs are not complaining about the procedures by 

which educational laws and requirements have been enacted in Iowa or applied to 

themselves. They do not dispute that those policy choices have been made 

democratically by the people’s elected representatives in the legislative and executive 

branches. Their quarrel is with the substance of Iowa’s educational policies. Id. 

(holding that where the plaintiffs do not clearly identify the nature of their due process 

claim, “we assume it is a substantive due process argument because they do not 

discuss any notice or hearing deficiencies”).
54

that Kentucky’s constitution included a constitutional mandate to 

“provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” 

790 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Ky. 1989); see also Ky. Const. § 183. And in 

Abbeville County School District v. State, the South Carolina Supreme 

Court invoked a constitutional provision that, like Connecticut’s, 

requires the state’s general assembly to “provide for the maintenance and 

support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the 

State.” 515 S.E.2d 535, 539 (S.C. 1999); see also S.C. Const. art. XI, § 3.

Whatever the merits of these other judicial interventions in 

education, Iowa’s constitution is different. As we have already discussed, 

it does not mandate that the legislature provide either “free public 

schools” or an “efficient system of common schools.” We are confronted 

with equal protection and due process challenges that should be resolved 

under a rational basis test. In Abbeville County School District, the South 

Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ equal 

protection cause of action under the South Carolina Constitution for 

failure to state a claim. 515 S.E.2d at 538–39; see also Comm. for Educ. 

Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178, 1196 (Ill. 1996) (affirming dismissal of 

equal protection claim brought under the Illinois Constitution and 

observing that “[w]hile the present school funding scheme might be 

thought unwise, undesirable or unenlightened from the standpoint of 

contemporary notions of social justice, these objections must be 

presented to the General Assembly”); Bonner, 907 N.E.2d at 522 

(upholding dismissal of equal protection and due process claims based 

on the Indiana Constitution); Fair Sch. Fin. Council of Okla., Inc. v. State, 

746 P.2d 1135, 1150–51 (Okla. 1987) (affirming grant of motion for 

judgment on the pleadings on the plaintiffs’ equal protection and due 
55

process claims under the Oklahoma Constitution after concluding “there 

is a rational basis to support the present school finance system”).

F. Iowa Code § 256.37. The plaintiffs also assert a statutory 

claim under Iowa Code section 256.37, which provides:

It is the policy of the state of Iowa to provide an 

education system that prepares the children of this state to 

meet and exceed the technological, informational, and 

communications demands of our society. The general 

assembly finds that the current education system must be 

transformed to deliver the enriched educational program that 

the adults of the future will need to have to compete in 

tomorrow’s world. The general assembly further finds that 

the education system must strive to reach the following 

goals:

1. All children in Iowa must start school ready to 

learn.

2. Iowa’s high school graduation rate must increase to 

at least ninety percent.

3. Students graduating from Iowa’s education system 

must demonstrate competency in challenging subject matter, 

and must have learned to use their minds well, so they may 

be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment in a global economy.

4. Iowa students must be first in the world in science 

and mathematics achievement.

5. Every adult Iowan must be literate and possess the 

knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global 

economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of 

citizenship.

6. Every school in Iowa must be free of drugs and 

violence and offer a disciplined environment conducive to 

learning.

This law does not contain an express private right of action, so any 

cause of action must be implied. Typically, in determining whether a 

private right of action may be inferred from a statute, we consider four 

factors:
56

1. Is the plaintiff a member of the class for whose benefit the

statute was enacted?

2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or 

implicit, to either create or deny such a remedy?

3. Would allowing such a cause of action be consistent with 

the underlying purpose of the legislation?

4. Would the private cause of action intrude into an area 

over which the federal government or a state 

administrative agency holds exclusive jurisdiction?

Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995) (citing Cort v. Ash, 

422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26, 36–37 (1975)). 

All four factors generally must weigh in favor of a private right of action 

for us to find such a right exists. Stotts v. Eveleth, 688 N.W.2d 803, 808 

(Iowa 2004).

Here we agree section 256.37 was enacted for the plaintiffs’ benefit, 

in that many of them are Iowa public school students. But we conclude 

the second, third, and fourth factors listed above do not support a 

private right of action, and therefore hold plaintiffs’ claim under section 

256.37 was properly dismissed.

Regarding the second Marcus/Cort factor, the language of section 

256.37 does not indicate legislative intent to create a remedy. Rather, 

the section merely sets forth a general statement of policy with six “goals” 

the “education system must strive to reach.” Iowa Code § 256.37 

(emphasis added). The legislature specifically used the terms “goals” 

instead of more concrete language such as “standards” or 

“requirements.” Also, the legislature used the aspirational phrase “must 

strive to reach” instead of a more demanding phrase such as “must 

reach.” Id.

Furthermore, the wording of the goals themselves reflects a 

legislative purpose to make only a policy pronouncement. Throughout 
57

the statute, broad and sweeping language such as “all” and “every” is 

used. Id. The goals are thus utopian in nature. For example, the final 

goal states, “Every school in Iowa must be free of drugs and violence 

. . . .” Id. Did the legislature intend to allow a student to bring suit 

whenever his or her school is not entirely “free of drugs and violence”? 

We think not.

The placement of section 37 within Chapter 256 of the Iowa Code 

also supports the proposition that it is simply a policy statement. 

Section 256.37 is located within subchapter I, entitled “General 

Provisions.” This subchapter generally describes education policy in 

Iowa and establishes the Department of Education. Many other sections 

within the same “General Provisions” subchapter also begin with the 

language, “It is the policy . . . .” See, e.g., id. §§ 256.18, .38.

The third Marcus/Cort factor is also unmet here because allowing a 

private cause of action would be inconsistent with section 256.37’s 

purpose of delineating general goals for Iowa’s educational system. 

Permitting a private right of action under section 256.37 would likely 

unleash a multiplicity of future lawsuits that would transform 

aspirational goals into a series of specific mandates. Notably, section 

256.37 was enacted as part of legislation that allowed the Department of 

Education to waive compliance with the minimum education standards 

for accredited schools under certain circumstances. See 1992 Iowa Acts 

ch. 1159, § 1.

In addition, the fourth factor is not satisfied because the 

Department of Education has jurisdiction under Iowa Code section 256.1 

to act in a policymaking capacity and provide statewide supervision of 

education in the State of Iowa. Iowa Code § 256.1(1) (“The department of 

education is established to act in a policymaking and advisory capacity 
58

and to exercise general supervision over the state system of education 

. . . .”). A private cause of action under section 256.37 would intrude 

into an area in which a state administrative agency, the Department of 

Education, already has exclusive jurisdiction.

Because neither the second, third, nor fourth elements of a private 

right of action is present here, we affirm the district court’s ruling that 

section 256.37 does not provide a private remedy.

Given our disposition of plaintiffs’ substantive claims, we need not 

reach defendants’ additional arguments that mandamus is not an 

appropriate remedy or that the Governor of Iowa is not a proper 

defendant.

IV. Conclusion.

We affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ first amended and substituted 

petition. We do not minimize the importance of the issues raised by the 

plaintiffs. But a respect for precedent and for our constitution requires 

that we stay out of this dispute. This court in its past decisions, from 

Kleen to Johnson to Exira, has historically deferred to the policy decisions 

made by the political branches of government in this area.26

The sixteen parents and students who brought this suit clearly 

believe that Iowa’s schools would benefit if we had more student testing, 

 26We do not think a resolution of this case requires us to review the history of 

education generally or what past Iowa governors have said on the subject. We are 

judges, not historians. For judges, some history, such as our own precedent, is highly 

relevant. But there are risks when we draw on political history as source material for 

judicial decisionmaking. One risk is that we may unwittingly diminish the importance 

of more relevant historical events, such as the ratification debates on the Iowa 

Constitution, by submerging them in other political history that has only background 

importance. Another risk is that political trends might then be used to justify the 

outcome in a particular case. It is not surprising to us that Iowa’s governors have 

believed education to be a critical responsibility of government. But demonstrating that 

education has been a vital concern of the political branches of government does not 

answer the present question whether this particular case ought to proceed through the 

judicial branch.
59

more statewide standards, more statewide uniformity, and a 

performance-based pay system for teachers. These issues are currently 

being debated throughout our state. The debate participants include 

legislators, the governor, executive branch officials, school boards, 

teachers, parents, students, and taxpayers. We believe the democratic 

process is best suited for resolution of those debates and can best

accommodate the competing concerns of the many interested parties.

As we said at the beginning of this opinion, we do not close the 

door to other actions alleging constitutional violations in the field of 

education. We uphold only the dismissal of this case.

AFFIRMED.

Cady, C.J., and Waterman and Zager, JJ., join this opinion. Cady, 

C.J., and Waterman, J., file separate concurring opinions. Wiggins, J., 

files a dissenting opinion in which Hecht and Appel, JJ., join. Appel, J., 

files a separate dissenting opinion in which Hecht, J., joins.
60

#08–2006, King v. State

CADY, Chief Justice (concurring specially). 

I concur in the opinion of the majority. I write separately to 

explain my unwillingness at this time to more fully explore the 

constitutional claim of a public education in Iowa and to further explain 

my position on the issues in this case. 

At the outset, I feel compelled to acknowledge that education is a 

tradition that exists today as strongly as ever. A system of public 

education is clearly needed to allow the youth of this state to learn the 

essential aspects of judgment, analysis, communication, and creativity. 

It is needed to empower each generation to meet the economic, social, 

scientific, political, governmental, personal, and other challenges of an 

evolving global world. Education is the core of who we are and who we 

will become. The dissenting opinion of Justice Appel has captured the 

rich history of this tradition in Iowa and has provided insight into its 

constitutional stature. 

Yet, in response to the specific claim of a constitutional right under 

the education clause raised in this case, I am restrained at this time from 

deciding anything more than that section 3 of the second division of 

article IX of the Iowa Constitution does not alone create a right to a 

public education. This conclusion is not to say no such right exists 

under the Iowa Constitution, but I am content to wait for a different case 

in which the petition both frames the full constitutional underpinnings 

and is accompanied by pleadings that would allow the underlying facts of 

the case to become a helpful aid in shaping the parameters to any such 

right recognized to exist. Of course, in this case, as pointed out by 

Justice Wiggins, the more fundamental obstacle presented is whether 

this extremely important issue should even be addressed by us when the 
61

parties chose, at least initially, not to raise it as an issue for appellate 

review after it was presented and decided by a district court. 

The doctrine of judicial restraint expressed by Justice Wiggins is a 

view I would normally follow. Yet, our rules of judicial restraint are full 

of nuance and exceptions and ultimately rest on the particular 

circumstances of each case. As observed in the majority opinion, the 

principles of judicial restraint also embrace judicial economy, a doctrine 

particularly applicable to this case. If the allegations of a case would not 

be sufficient to establish a claim, assuming they were all true, judicial 

economy would not be served by sending the case back for the parties to 

go through the time and expense of further proceedings only for the

courts to later declare the plaintiff never had a viable claim in the first 

place. 

Judicial restraint is a doctrine composed of many elements, and it 

strives for outcomes that are both fair and practical. In this case, it is 

both fair and practical for us to examine the pleadings to determine if the 

plaintiffs could ever win their lawsuit if we declared the educational 

experience mandated by the legislature in this state was a constitutional 

right. It is fair because the parties fully explored this issue before the 

district court, and it was ultimately raised and urged at rehearing on 

appeal. It is practical because the case is before us, and it is in the best 

interests of all concerned for us to decide the merits of the underlying 

claim now. Thus, under the particular procedural background of this 

case, I conclude the doctrine of judicial restraint does not instruct us to 

refrain from deciding the basic question whether or not the plaintiffs 

have failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, it is appropriate to 

decide if the allegations are sufficient to support a violation of a 

fundamental right to an adequate education. 
62

Normally, cases are not resolved on the pleadings. U.S. Bank v. 

Barbour, 770 N.W.2d 350, 353 (Iowa 2009). Moreover, we do not set a 

high bar for litigants to clear to meet the requirement for a pleading to 

state a claim for relief. Id. at 354 (noting the “fair notice” requirement is 

met if a petition informs the defendant of the incident giving rise to the 

claim and the claim’s general nature). Instead, we follow the liberal rule 

of notice pleading. This rule, however, does not mean all claims clear the 

bar. See O’Brien v. DiGrazia, 544 F.2d 543, 546 n.3 (1st Cir. 1976) 

(noting that, when plaintiff in civil rights action provides facts to support 

claim, court does not have duty to “conjure up unpleaded facts that 

might turn a frivolous claim of unconstitutional official action into a 

substantial one”); see also 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 548–53 (3d ed. 2004) (noting 

courts “will accept the pleader’s description of what happened to him or 

her along with any conclusion that can reasonably be drawn therefrom,” 

but will not accept “conclusory allegations concerning the legal effect of 

the events the plaintiff has set out if these allegations do not reasonably 

follow from the pleader’s description of what happened”). 

When the viability of a claim for relief is challenged, our pleading 

rule requires consideration of any conceivable set of facts, but only those 

facts that relate to and could prove the allegations made in the petition. 

The allegations of the petition, if proven by the facts, must show 

entitlement to relief. Reviewing courts do not, however, consider any 

conceivable allegations, only any conceivable facts that support the 

allegations made. 

In this case, the allegations of the petition, even if true, could not 

establish that students in Iowa today are being denied a basic or 

minimally adequate education, wherever that elusive standard might 
63

land. The plaintiffs have not made a single allegation that could 

establish they have been deprived of the basic ability to read, write, or 

communicate, and they have not alleged they have been deprived of their 

ability to gain an understanding of mathematics, science, economics, 

government, computer-based technology, or other vital components of a 

basic education. While the allegations in the petition are detailed and 

thoughtful, they simply do not show Iowa students are being deprived of 

an opportunity for an adequate education. For example, the disparities 

alleged to exist between school districts across Iowa may show slightly 

different education experiences and outcomes, but those different 

outcomes do not establish a deprivation of basic education. 

Likewise, Iowa’s recent decline of college admissions test scores 

and other proficiency scores do not establish a deprivation of basic 

education. They merely show the state may have begun to slip, but the 

level of decline alleged is not so much that a reasonable person could say 

the slip means students have been altogether deprived of a basic 

education. Similarly, the absence of certain assessment mechanisms in 

Iowa, as alleged by the plaintiffs, does not establish the deprivation of 

basic education. Even Iowa’s decline in the national rankings in various 

subjects does not mean students are being deprived of basic education. 

Again, it merely shows we are beginning to slip or perhaps other states 

are beginning to improve. Finally, the broad allegations that Iowa has 

failed to establish standards, enforce standards, adopt effective teacher 

pay systems, and establish a delivery system are insufficient. Accepting 

all the allegations of the petition to be true, the deprivation of basic 

education cannot be established. There are simply no allegations that 

students in Iowa cannot read, write, communicate, or perform the other 

essential aspects of education. There are no allegations that capable 
64

students lack an understanding of mathematics, science, economics, 

government, or computer-based technology. 

The petition does contain some statements generally indicting the 

public education system. For example, the petition states that “[m]any 

Iowa students are not prepared to enter the workforce or postsecondary 

education without additional training or remediation when they graduate 

from high school.” The petition also alleges the educational and 

accreditation standards of this state “do not ensure that all students” will 

be able to meet or exceed the future demands of society, be prepared for 

responsible citizenship, and be prepared for further learning and 

productive employment in the global economy. The petition also 

generally declares, “[A]n ineffective education will persist for school 

children throughout their lifetimes, affecting the rate and extent of their 

ability to be a responsible citizen, their ability to learn further, and their 

ability to achieve productive employment in a global economy.” 

To the extent such claims are actually allegations of a petition, as 

opposed to hortatory calls to action, they relate to the level of a basic or 

adequate education. Wherever a basic or adequate education might land 

within the framework of our constitution, assuming the existence of a 

right to education, that landing point certainly would not guarantee that 

“all students” would be able to meet the broad demands of the world in 

the future. Nor would the right guarantee students would never need to 

take a remedial course to enter the workforce or postsecondary 

education. 

Of course, my rejection of the pleadings in the case as a basis to 

support a constitutional right necessarily leads to the question of what 

allegations would need to be pled to properly support the constitutional 

claim of a minimally sufficient public education. Assuming Justice Appel 
65

has articulated the source of a constitutional claim to a public education, 

the fighting issue turns to the meaning of a minimally sufficient 

education. This is an issue that is indeed difficult and one that I am 

admittedly without a specific answer at this time. We landed on a 

minimally sufficient standard in the context of the constitutional right to 

counsel, and this standard has worked well enough in applying the 

constitutional right. But, public education is a totally different kettle of 

fish. The point when a state’s educational system becomes minimally 

insufficient would be difficult to ascertain in the context of a 

constitutional analysis. Nevertheless, the analysis would need to 

generally center on the performance of the school system and its 

collective outcomes and be ultimately judged in relationship to other 

performance models over a period of years. But, for now, I am simply 

content that the allegations of the petition in this case fall short and that 

a trial to obtain the supporting evidence would not help. 

Additionally, the allegations of the petition, even if true, do not 

establish a violation of the equal protection clause. Even assuming the 

different educational outcomes alleged in the petition are supported by 

facts, a rational basis certainly could be articulated to justify the 

different outcomes. This rational basis is found in the local control given 

to school districts. Moreover, a rational basis to justify different 

outcomes does not need to be derived by courts from the record in a 

case. Importantly, similar to the way facts are assumed to support 

allegations in a petition to determine if a claim for relief has been stated, 

courts formulate a rational basis from any information that is 

“realistically conceivable.” Miller v. Boone Cnty. Hosp., 394 N.W.2d 776, 

779 (Iowa 1986). Thus, when considering constitutional challenges 

subject to a rational-basis analysis, courts may consider the existence of 
66

any conceivable rational basis. The analysis does not require a factual 

basis drawn from the record in the case. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v. 

Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 7–8 & n.4 (Iowa 2004). Accordingly, this 

analysis means courts are not required to needlessly wait for a trial 

before declaring that a particular different outcome in society does not 

violate the equal protection guarantee. Different outcomes from 

governmental actions can be observed throughout society, and they 

violate the equal protection clause only when government does not have 

an adequate justification for the different treatment. See Varnum v. 

Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 879 (Iowa 2009). 

In the end, the allegations of the petition, while alarming, simply 

cannot support the constitutional claim that is urged. Consequently, the 

courts have no role in the resolution of this important social issue at this 

time. The petition, if true, may be a call to action, but it is a call under 

our constitutional structure for the legislature, not the courts. The 

pleadings simply do not convince me that school children today in Iowa, 

let alone the school children at the center of this lawsuit, are being 

deprived or have been deprived of any level of education our constitution 

would be able to mandate. 
67

#08–2006, King v. State

WATERMAN, J. (concurring specially).

I concur in the majority’s well-reasoned decision on all issues. I 

write separately to emphasize the importance of judicial restraint when 

litigants ask courts to overstep their bounds.

This case was resubmitted for a second oral argument because 

three new members were added to this court. Plaintiffs’ counsel in his 

eloquent oral argument urged our court to “do its job.” We do exactly 

that today by affirming the dismissal of a well-intentioned, but legally 

flawed lawsuit. If these individual plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with 

this case in the courts, and they somehow won the relief they seek, the 

end result would be judges running our public schools through 

structural injunctions that second-guess the educational policy decisions 

made by the elected branches of government. That is not our role. We 

do not sit as the supreme school board of the State of Iowa, and we are 

unwilling in the guise of adjudication to usurp powers the Iowa 

Constitution cedes to the elected branches to run our public schools. 

The separation-of-powers doctrine precludes the relief these plaintiffs 

seek from the courts.

To reinstate this lawsuit would set a dangerous precedent. These 

plaintiffs ask too much of our court jurisprudentially. It is not for courts 

to impose particular statewide educational standards by judicial decree. 

Our limited role as a coequal branch of government requires us to 

adjudicate cases and in doing so construe the meaning of our 

constitution; the constitutional power to run our public schools lies with 

the legislative and executive branches. Courts can and must step in if 

that power is exercised in a way that infringes on individual rights. See, 

e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 514, 89 
68

S. Ct. 733, 740, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 742 (1969) (holding First Amendment 

protection for symbolic speech required school officials to allow students 

to wear black armbands protesting the Vietnam War). Such cases 

involving individual rights are well within the institutional competence of 

courts to decide. No such claim is stated in this case. Nor is this case 

another Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 

L. Ed. 873 (1954), challenging racial segregation or discrimination. No 

claim of disparate treatment or any illegal classification such as race is 

made here. Rather, these plaintiffs seek broad educational reform. Our 

courts are not institutionally competent to make educational policy 

judgments. The Department of Education is in the executive branch.

It is worth repeating here Justice Scalia’s recent warning against 

the use of structural injunctions in institutional reform litigation: 

Structural injunctions . . . turn[] judges into long-term 

administrators of complex social institutions such as 

schools, prisons, and police departments. Indeed, they 

require judges to play a role essentially indistinguishable 

from the role ordinarily played by executive officials. . . .

The drawbacks of structural injunctions have been 

described at great length elsewhere. This case illustrates 

one of their most pernicious aspects: that they force judges 

to engage in a form of factfinding-as-policymaking that is 

outside the traditional judicial role. The factfinding judges 

traditionally engage in involves the determination of past or 

present facts based (except for a limited set of materials of 

which courts may take “judicial notice”) exclusively upon a 

closed trial record. That is one reason why a district judge’s 

factual findings are entitled to plain-error review: because 

having viewed the trial first hand he is in a better position to 

evaluate the evidence than a judge reviewing a cold record. 

In a very limited category of cases, judges have also 

traditionally been called upon to make some predictive 

judgments: which custody will best serve the interests of the 

child, for example, or whether a particular one-shot 

injunction will remedy the plaintiff’s grievance. When a 

judge manages a structural injunction, however, he will 

inevitably be required to make very broad empirical 

predictions necessarily based in large part upon policy 

views—the sort of predictions regularly made by legislators 
69

and executive officials, but inappropriate for the Third 

Branch.

. . . .

It is important to recognize that the dressing-up of 

policy judgments as factual findings is not an error peculiar 

to this case. It is an unavoidable concomitant of 

institutional-reform litigation. When a district court issues 

an injunction, it must make a factual assessment of the 

anticipated consequences of the injunction. And when the 

injunction undertakes to restructure a social institution, 

assessing the factual consequences of the injunction is 

necessarily the sort of predictive judgment that our system of 

government allocates to other government officials.

But structural injunctions do not simply invite judges 

to indulge policy preferences. They invite judges to indulge 

incompetent policy preferences. Three years of law school 

and familiarity with pertinent Supreme Court precedents 

give no insight whatsoever into the management of social 

institutions.

Brown v. Plata, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1953–55, 179 

L. Ed. 2d 969, 1015–16 (2011) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).

These admonitions apply with equal force here. A law degree and 

some court room experience do not qualify judges to restructure Iowa 

schools or impose new statewide educational standards. If we reinstate 

this case, one can easily imagine more lawsuits will be filed by other 

families with different ideas on how to run the schools. Whatever 

evidence the King plaintiffs might offer at a trial in this case presumably 

would make a record very different from the evidentiary trial record to be 

made by other plaintiffs with conflicting educational policy goals such as 

vouchers or greater local control. All such trials would be a waste of time 

and scarce resources in the absence of a cognizable claim upon which 

judicial relief may be granted.

We are affirming the dismissal of this case based on the plain 

meaning of our constitution and our own precedent. Sixteen years ago 

our court unanimously recognized that it is not our role to “develop or 
70

choose among schemes for public education” and that the proper forum 

for such debates is “in the other branches of state government.” Exira 

Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 512 N.W.2d 787, 796 (Iowa 1994). This view is 

echoed by many other voices of restraint on the supreme courts of our 

sister states.27

By contrast, instead of focusing on our own precedent, the dissent 

embarks on a wide-ranging survey of authorities. For example, the 

dissent cites several times to the United Nations’ 1948 Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, a document that includes a right to leisure 

time and health care as well as a right to education. The dissent 

 27See, e.g., Comm. for Educ. Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178, 1189 (Ill. 1996) 

(“[Q]uestions relating to the quality of education are solely for the legislative branch to 

answer.”); Hornbeck v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 458 A.2d 758, 790 (Md. 1983) (“The 

quantity and quality of educational opportunities to be made available to the State’s 

public school children is a determination committed to the legislature or to the people 

. . . .”); Neb. Coal. for Educ. Equity & Adequacy v. Heineman, 731 N.W.2d 164, 181 (Neb. 

2007) (“[I]t is beyond our ken to determine what is adequate funding for public schools. 

This court is simply not the proper forum for resolving broad and complicated policy 

decisions or balancing competing political interests.”); Londonderry Sch. Dist. SAU No. 

12 v. State, 907 A.2d 988, 996 (N.H. 2006) (noting “concern that this court or any court 

not take over the legislature’s role in shaping educational and fiscal policy”); Okla. Educ. 

Ass’n v. State ex rel. Okla. Legislature, 158 P.3d 1058, 1066 (Okla. 2007) (“[T]he 

important role of education in our society does not allow us to override the 

constitutional restrictions placed on our judicial authority.”); Marrero ex rel. Tabalas v. 

Commonwealth, 739 A.2d 110, 113–14 (Pa. 1999) (“[T]his court is . . . unable to 

judicially define what constitutes an ‘adequate’ education or what funds are ‘adequate’ 

to support such a program.”); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 62 (R.I. 1995) 

(“[T]he level of state educational funding is largely a matter for the Legislature, which 

possesses the ‘expertise and familiarity with local problems implicated in the raising 

and disposition of public revenues associated with public education.’ ” (quoting 

Hornbeck, 458 A.2d at 786)); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 541 

(S.C. 1999) (“We do not intend the courts of this State to become super-legislatures or 

super-school boards.”); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568, 583 (Wis. 1989) (“Because 

issues such as equality in education are peppered with political perceptions and 

emotionally laden views, we have carefully restrained our consideration of the 

constitutional issues before us . . . .”); see also San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 42, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 1301, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 48 (1973) (“In 

addition to matters of fiscal policy, this case also involves the most persistent and 

difficult questions of educational policy, another area in which this Court’s lack of 

specialized knowledge and experience counsels against premature interference with the 

informed judgments made at the state and local levels.”).
71

acknowledges this UN Declaration is not binding in United States courts. 

See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734–35, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 

2767, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718, 754–55 (2004). The only education case citing 

the UN Declaration was accompanied by a vigorous and well-reasoned 

dissent. Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859, 897–900 (W. Va. 1979) (Neely, 

J., dissenting). No party to this litigation cited the UN Declaration at any 

point in the proceedings or argued it had any relevance. I fail to see how 

a 1948 UN Declaration helps our court ascertain the intent of the 

framers of the Iowa Constitution ratified ninety years earlier. Our court 

has not previously relied on UN declarations or international law to 

interpret our 1857 constitution, and I would not start now.

The dissent also discusses numerous historical figures and famous 

educators. Yet none of them is quoted for the proposition that courts 

should be running schools. I imagine all of them would be surprised by 

that notion. The divergence of views of education surveyed by the 

dissent is another reason why policymaking should be left to the elected 

branches. How should an Iowa judge or jury in a contested case select 

from among the disparate academic viewpoints and standards? We all 

agree public education is vitally important. But that does not warrant 

courts interfering in how our public schools are run. The lengthy dissent 

cites no case from any jurisdiction where court-ordered imposition of 

statewide educational standards improved student outcomes.

The dissent argues we should not decide whether the amended 

petition states a claim upon which relief may be granted because the 

appellee who won dismissal below did not brief that alternative ground 

for dismissal on appeal. That issue was fully briefed by both sides in the 

district court and decided by the district court and is appropriately 

decided by our court today for the reasons set forth in the majority 
72

opinion and Chief Justice Cady’s special concurrence. The dissenters’ 

position today is at odds with their zeal a mere eighteen months ago to 

decide an issue the parties in another case failed to brief in district court 

or on appeal and that the district court never decided. See Feld v. 

Borkowski, 790 N.W.2d 72, 81–82 (Iowa 2010) (Wiggins, J., concurring 

specially); id. at 82–85 (Appel, J., concurring in part and dissenting in 

part). The dissenters argue it was appropriate to reach the issue omitted 

from the briefs in Feld because it was inextricably intertwined with the 

issue briefed on appeal. The same is true in this case—whether these 

plaintiffs allege claims upon which judicial relief may be granted or 

rather nonjusticiable political questions is simply two sides of the same 

coin. Notably, in Feld, Justice Wiggins posed several questions that are 

better asked in this case:

Why should we leave the question unanswered when the 

district court will be confronted with it on remand? Why are 

we creating a potential appeal on this issue . . . when we can 

answer the question now? It seems to me, for us not to 

address the issue creates extra expense for the parties and 

the court. Accordingly, I would address the issue head on 

and give the contact sports exception a proper burial.

Id. at 82. So too should we give plaintiffs’ case “a proper burial” now, 

instead of remanding for a costly trial to prove allegations that, if true, 

provide no grounds for judicial relief.28

 28Justice Wiggins’ dissent asserts our majority decision “appears to overrule” 

Racing Ass’n of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI II), 675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004). RACI II

as a practical matter has been limited to its facts. I would expressly overrule RACI II as 

plainly erroneous. The RACI II majority, purporting to apply the federal rational-basis 

test, held that a tax differential for casino slot machine revenue violated the equal 

protection clause of the Iowa Constitution on remand after the unanimous United 

States Supreme Court had held the differential did not violate federal equal protection. 

675 N.W.2d at 3. The RACI II majority thereby essentially took the position that the 

nine justices of the United States Supreme Court were irrational in applying the same 

rational-basis test in the same case, despite the well-settled and long-standing tradition 

of judicial deference to legislative economic regulation and tax classifications. RACI II

was wrongly decided for the reasons set forth in the eloquent separate dissents by 

Justices Cady and Carter. See id. at 16–17 (Carter, J., dissenting); id. at 17–28 (Iowa 
73

Many generations of Iowans have been justifiably proud of the 

quality of our state’s public school system. The allegations in this 

lawsuit shine a light on shortcomings, disturbing downward trends, and 

outcomes that vary from district to district. But notably absent in the 

voluminous filings in this appeal is any convincing argument judicial 

intervention will make Iowa schools better. Plaintiffs filed no Brandeis 

brief providing empirical data that their requested judicial intervention 

would improve educational outcomes. The plaintiffs in this case are no 

doubt optimistic and sincere in their beliefs that the educational reforms 

they seek to impose statewide by judicial fiat will raise ACT scores in 

many districts. Our courts, however, are not competent to determine 

whether a structural injunction imposing a new set of priorities and 

standards will accomplish those worthy goals or instead lower composite 

average ACT scores in districts that currently must be doing many things 

right.

Voters elect our governor, legislators, and school board members. 

If these plaintiffs do not like how Iowa schools are run, they should turn 

to the ballot box, not the courts.

_______________________________

2002) (Cady, J., dissenting); see also Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI I), 

648 N.W.2d 555, 563–64 (Neuman, J., dissenting, joined by Carter and Cady, JJ.); 

Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa, 539 U.S. 103, 123 S. Ct. 2156, 156 L. Ed. 2d 

97 (2003) (reversing RACI I on federal equal protection grounds).
74

10:43/08–2006, King v. State

WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting).

I would find the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims justiciable and 

remand the case for further proceedings on the merits of those claims. 

Therefore, I dissent from Justice Mansfield’s opinion29 and Chief Justice 

Cady’s concurring opinion because they reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ 

claims under the education clause, the due process clause, and the 

privileges and immunities clause of the Iowa Constitution even though 

the State did not raise the merits of these issues on appeal. I also 

dissent from these opinions because they reach the issue that plaintiffs’ 

petition failed to state a claim. Further, I dissent from Justice 

Waterman’s concurring opinion because he finds the constitutional 

claims nonjusticiable. 

A supreme court is “a court of final review and not first view.” 

Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 

1430, 182 L. Ed. 2d 423, 433 (2012). Our cases stand for the 

proposition that we may affirm the district court on any basis appearing 

in the record and urged on appeal by the appellee. See, e.g., In re Estate 

of Voss, 553 N.W.2d 878, 879 n.1 (Iowa 1996); Johnston Equip. Corp. v. 

Indus. Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13, 17 (Iowa 1992); see also Chauffeurs, 

Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 238 v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 

394 N.W.2d 375, 378 (Iowa 1986) (stating we may decide issues on 

appeal not reached by the district court where they have been raised in 

the district court and fully briefed and argued by the parties on appeal). 

 29Justice Mansfield’s opinion appears to be a plurality opinion because it 

reaches the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims under the education clause, due process 

clause, and privileges and immunities clause of the Iowa Constitution. Although 

Justice Waterman concurs in the opinion, he does so by finding the plaintiffs’ claims to 

be nonjusticiable political questions just as the district court did. 
75

This rule is rooted in the principle of fairness, and we have consistently 

applied it in our cases. 

For example, in State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2005), we 

held the appellee waived certain arguments on appeal even though the 

issues were raised in and decided by the district court because the 

appellee failed to present the arguments in his appellate briefs. 701 

N.W.2d at 661–62. In Parkhurst v. White, 254 Iowa 477, 118 N.W.2d 47 

(1962), we held the appellee waived an issue presented to the district 

court but not briefed on appeal. 254 Iowa at 480–81, 118 N.W.2d at 49. 

Similarly, in American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. State Auto.

Insurance Association, 246 Iowa 1294, 72 N.W.2d 88 (1955), we 

concluded an alternative constitutional claim was not before us because 

the appellee failed to assert the claim on appeal. 246 Iowa at 1303, 72 

N.W.2d at 93. 

This case provides further support for the reasons underlying our 

rule of error preservation. Here, the district court determined the 

plaintiffs’ amended petition alleged facts sufficient to meet our notice 

pleading standard. See Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa 

Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600, 608 (Iowa 2012) (declining to adopt a 

heightened pleading standard). The district court then dismissed the 

plaintiffs’ claims as nonjusticiable political questions. On appeal, the 

plaintiffs’ argued in their appellate brief that its claims were not 

nonjusticiable political questions. The plaintiffs did not argue the merits 

of their constitutional claims or argue that their petition met our 

pleading standard. Indeed, because the district court did not address 

the merits of the constitutional claims and ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor on 

the pleading issue, it would have been unnecessary and strategically 

unwise to do so unless the defendants raised these issues on appeal. 
76

However, the defendants, the prevailing parties below, only argued in 

their appellate briefs that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims presented 

nonjusticiable political questions. The defendants did not argue the 

plaintiffs’ petition failed to meet our pleading standard. Therefore, under 

our rule of error preservation, the only issue briefed by the parties on 

appeal, and thus subject to consideration by this court, is the issue of 

whether the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims present nonjusticiable 

political questions. 

In order to reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and to 

determine the plaintiffs’ petition failed to state a claim, Justice 

Mansfield’s opinion and Chief Justice Cady’s concurring opinion rely on 

the proposition that we can uphold a district court decision on a ground 

different from the one upon which the district court based its decision as 

long as the ground was urged in the district court. See DeVoss v. State, 

648 N.W.2d 56, 63 (2002). As already noted, this proposition stands for 

only half of our rule regarding error preservation. These opinions ignore 

the other half of the rule requiring the parties to brief the issues in this 

court. In fact, the cases upon which Justice Mansfield’s opinion relies to 

support its proposition support the two-part rule. Granted, we examined 

issues in Martinek v. Belmond-Klemme Community School District, 772 

N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2009), Fennelly v. A-1 Machine & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 

163 (Iowa 2006), and Emmert v. Neiman, 245 Iowa 931, 65 N.W.2d 606 

(1954), that the district court did not address. However, a review of the 

appellate briefs in these cases, which are on file at the state law library, 

reveals that the parties on appeal briefed the alternate or additional 

grounds upon which we relied. 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion also relies on Erickson v. Erickson’s 

Estate, 191 Iowa 1393, 180 N.W. 664 (1920), for its proposition that we 
77

can affirm on a ground raised in the trial court but not argued in this 

court. However, Erickson is but a relic of an earlier time. Although we 

have never expressly overruled Erickson, it seems nearly a century of 

case law has destroyed its precedential value. Surely Johnston 

Equipment Corporation and Voss articulate rules of error preservation 

that have at the very least impliedly overruled Erickson. In reaching 

these issues, Justice Mansfield’s opinion has effectively overruled the 

ninety years of case law since Erickson and returned us to its archaic 

principle. After this decision, if an appellant wants to further inform the 

court as to its argument, it seems the appellant must expand upon every 

argument raised at the district court in its appellate brief, regardless of 

whether the district court ruled in its favor on a particular issue and 

unprompted by any action by the appellee. Otherwise, the appellant 

risks this court deciding an issue no party expected this court to decide. 

In other words, every issue presented to the district court, no matter how 

irrelevant to its decision it may seem, becomes relevant on appeal. 

Further, neither the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional 

arguments nor the sufficiency of the pleadings are inextricably 

intertwined with the issue of whether the plaintiffs’ claim sets forth a 

political question.30 The district court decided the political question 

 30In special concurrences, members of this court urged the majority to abandon 

the contact-sports exception when neither party so urged in their briefs. See Feld v. 

Borkowski, 790 N.W.2d 72, 81 (Iowa 2010) (Wiggins, J., specially concurring); id. at 82 

(Appel, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The specially concurring 

members argued the issue of abandonment of the contact-sports exception was 

inextricably intertwined with the case because, under the particular circumstances of 

the case, resolution of the contact-sports-exception-issue was necessary for the proper 

disposition of the case on retrial. Feld, 790 N.W.2d at 85 (Appel, J., concurring in part 

and dissenting in part); see also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 246–47 n.12, 

102 S. Ct. 252, 261 n.12, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 430 n.12 (1981) (courts may consider 

questions outside the scope of the issues of the order granting review when resolution of 

those issues is necessary to properly dispose of the case). However, the majority 

rejected the arguments made in the special concurrences in Feld, and thus, the law of 

this State required a party to brief and argue an issue in this court before we would 
78

issue without reference to the other issues concerning the education, due 

process, and privileges and immunities clauses of the Iowa Constitution. 

We can and should do the same. 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion may argue the parties raised these 

issues on appeal because they discussed them during oral argument. 

However, the opinion’s rationale that the parties preserved these issues 

for our consideration on appeal fails for two reasons. First, on 

resubmission Justice Mansfield precipitated the references to these

unbriefed issues by asking questions on these issues not raised in this 

appeal.31 Justice Mansfield’s opinion cannot claim the parties preserved 

these issues by raising them through questioning by the court. Second, 

our case law is unwavering in the proposition that we will not decide or 

consider issues raised for the first time during oral argument. See Dilley 

v. City of Des Moines, 247 N.W.2d 187, 195 (Iowa 1976) (citing cases for 

this proposition dating back to 1959). 

There is a sound reason for this latter proposition. Chief Judge 

Posner noted, “[I]t would not be quite cricket of us to place [our] decision 

on the ground” that was not raised until the oral argument on appeal 

because the other party may have been lulled into thinking its opponent 

was fighting the case on another issue. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 

Charter Barclay Hosp., Inc., 81 F.3d 53, 56 (7th Cir. 1996). 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion and Chief Justice Cady’s concurring 

opinion are perfect examples of this principle. Their analysis regarding 

_______________________________

consider it on appeal. Even if the special concurrences in Feld were applicable in this 

case, the merits of the issues reached by Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the concurring 

opinion of Chief Justice Cady were not inextricably intertwined with the political 

question issues raised by this appeal. The majority and special concurrences seem to 

signal a shift in our error preservation rules.

31Within the first three minutes of the plaintiffs’ oral argument, Justice 

Mansfield began asking questions about the equal protection clause.
79

the education clause, due process clause, and privileges and immunities 

clause of the Iowa Constitution are entirely their own. For example, 

when discussing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim under the education 

clause, Justice Mansfield’s opinion provides its own analysis of article IX, 

division 2, section 3 of the Iowa Constitution. This section provides, in 

relevant part, “The General Assembly shall encourage, by all suitable 

means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural 

improvement.” Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 2, § 3 (1857 original version). 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the concurring opinion of Chief 

Justice Cady fail to consider article IX, division 1, section 12, which 

states:

The Board of Education shall provide for the education of all 

the youths of the State, through a system of Common 

Schools and such school shall be organized and kept in each 

school district at least three months in each year. Any 

district failing, for two consecutive years, to organize and 

keep up a school as aforesaid may be deprived of their 

portion of the school fund. 

Id. art. IX, div. 1, § 12. 

Although the legislature abolished the board of education referred 

to in section 12 in 1864 and replaced it with the superintendent of 

education, the predecessor to the present department of education, the 

citizens of this state never repealed the substance of 1857 article IX, 

division 1, section 12. See 1864 Iowa Acts ch. 52 §§ 1–15. In fact, this 

court used the substantive provisions of article IX, division 1, section 12 

to integrate Iowa schools four years after the legislature abolished the 

board of education. See Clark v. Bd. of Dirs., 24 Iowa 266, 274 (1868) 

(quoting article IX, division 1, section 12 by stating “that provision shall 

be made ‘for the education of all the youths of the State through a system 

of common schools,’ which constitutional declaration has been 
80

effectuated by enactments providing for the ‘instruction of youth between 

the ages of five and twenty-one years’ ”). In Clark, the court recognized 

the Iowa constitutional rights of all children to obtain an education and 

that the education provided by the state must be provided equally to all 

children. Id. at 272–77. The analyses in Justice Mansfield’s opinion and 

the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Cady of this important issue 

without allowing the parties to properly brief and argue it deprives the 

plaintiffs of their day in court.32 As Justice Stevens of the Supreme 

Court noted, “[T]he adversary process functions most effectively when we 

rely on the initiative of lawyers, rather than the activism of judges, to 

fashion the questions for review.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 468 U.S. 1214, 

1216, 104 S. Ct. 3583, 3585, 82 L. Ed. 2d 881, 883 (1984) (Stevens, J., 

dissenting) (emphasis added). 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the concurring opinion of Chief 

Justice Cady perfectly illustrate the reasons for Justice Stevens’ warning. 

These opinions address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims in order to 

dismiss the case. In doing so, these opinions fail to fully explore the 

parameters of the right to an education guaranteed by the Iowa 

Constitution. These opinions pick article IX, division 2, section 3 of the 

Iowa Constitution to evaluate the merits of the case even though the 

parties did not brief or raise this section on appeal. To compound their 

mistake, these opinions fail to address the education clause found in 

 32Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Cady 

ignore this constitutional argument because it was not raised in the district court. To 

me, it is inconsistent to decide the case on appeal on issues and arguments that were 

not raised below, but to deny the plaintiffs their day in court to develop all of their 

arguments fully, including those arguments they could have made under article IX, 

division 1, section 12 of the Iowa Constitution. After all, the State did not appeal the 

merits of this case. If these opinions had not reached beyond the arguments presented 

by the parties on appeal and we had decided this appeal in favor of the plaintiffs solely 

on the issue of political question, it is logical to conclude the plaintiffs would have had 

the opportunity to develop more fully their arguments in the district court on remand. 
81

article IX, division 1, section 12 of the Iowa Constitution on the grounds 

the parties did not raise it in the district court. In other words, to reach 

a desired result, these opinions pick and choose which arguments to 

make and which arguments not to make under their own error 

preservation rule. To me, it is inconsistent to decide the case on appeal 

on issues and arguments the parties did not raise below, but to deny the 

plaintiffs their day in court to develop all of their arguments fully, 

including those arguments they could have made under article IX, 

division 1, section 12 of the Iowa Constitution. 

These opinions also frame their own arguments regarding equal 

protection and due process without the input of the attorneys on appeal 

and subsequently knock those arguments down to reach a desired result 

in this case. The fairest way to resolve these issues is not for the court to 

pick and choose sua sponte which issues and arguments to decide and 

which to ignore, but rather to remand the case to the district court for 

the parties to frame and fully brief all arguments relevant to this 

important issue. 

An additional reason we do not decide issues raised for the first 

time during oral argument is that it would be unfair to second-guess the 

strategy of the State. It may have made a conscious decision not to raise 

the alternative ground on appeal. See Fencl v. City of Harpers Ferry, 620 

N.W.2d 808, 811–12 (Iowa 2000) (stating that “we may still affirm if there 

is an alternative ground, raised in the district court and urged on appeal, 

that can support the court’s decision”). Maybe the State wanted to focus 

the appeal on what it thought was its best chance for affirmance. By not 

urging an alternative ground on appeal, the State may have conceded 

that it would not win on its motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause 

of action under our liberal notice pleading rules. It is possible the State 
82

decided it wanted to win on a summary judgment instead of procedural 

grounds. It also may have decided it would have had a better chance of 

prevailing on a motion for summary judgment after better developing a 

record. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa, 539 U.S. 103, 

110, 123 S. Ct. 2156, 2161, 156 L. Ed. 2d 97, 105 (2003) (deciding a 

constitutional claim in favor of the State after a motion for summary 

judgment); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 907 (2009) (deciding a 

statute was unconstitutional after developing the record in a summary 

judgment proceeding); Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n v. City of Ames, 736 

N.W.2d 255, 263 (Iowa 2007) (deciding an ordinance was constitutional 

after developing the record in a summary judgment proceeding); City of 

Waterloo v. Selden, 251 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Iowa 1977) (finding the 

summary judgment record affirmatively established at least one rational 

basis, and therefore, the statute was constitutional). 

Finally, an appeal is between the attorneys and the parties they 

represent. Our law clerks and judges should not be doing the work of 

counsel or making strategic decisions on which issues to appeal. See 

United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 1996). We are not 

advocates and should not usurp a party’s strategy. 

The public has criticized this court for reaching out and deciding 

issues not raised or briefed on appeal. This is another case for the critics 

to add to their list. We cannot have a rule of law that we reach out and 

decide an issue not briefed or pressed by the parties on appeal in order 

to achieve a desired result. Only time will tell if the court will apply this 

rule in a principled fashion or if the court will use it to achieve results 

favored by the shifting majorities of the court. In particular, it would be 

a most unfortunate development to see a liberal approach to preservation 

to deny individual rights, and a “gotcha” or cramped approach to 
83

preservation in order to avoid consideration of issues that would tend to 

vindicate individual rights. See, e.g., Mulhern v. Catholic Health 

Initiatives, 799 N.W.2d 104, 123 (Iowa 2011) (Wiggins, J., dissenting) 

(explaining the majority decided the case on an issue not tried in the 

district court or argued on appeal). 

I do not see how we can continue to assert in criminal cases that 

error not preserved on appeal is “waived,” or how we can say the failure 

to cite authority in a criminal case leads to waiver when, in this case, we 

have no briefing whatsoever on issues other than on the political 

question issue. 

Further, because Justice Mansfield’s opinion and concurring 

opinion of Chief Justice Cady reach the merits of the constitutional 

issues, they appear to overrule our decision in Racing Association of 

Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI), 675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004), without the 

benefits of an appellate brief by the parties. In those cases, we said, in 

deciding a state constitutional equal protection challenge, we first 

determine whether the legislature had a valid reason to treat similarly 

situated persons differently. RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 7. Next, we decide if 

this reason has a basis in fact. Id. at 8. 

There is no way we can do a proper analysis under our existing law 

as to whether the reason for the disparity has a basis in fact without the 

plaintiffs’ evidence and arguments on the issue. It appears members of 

the court want to overrule RACI. It is their prerogative to do so. 

However, without the plaintiffs briefing the issue, members of the court 

are promoting their own agenda. It would have been nice if the plaintiffs 

had weighed in on these issues. 

There will be time enough to sort through the complicated issues 

in this case. We do a disservice to the ordinary judicial process by 
84

deciding this case without briefing in this court and without a fuller 

development in the district court. As noted by the Missouri Supreme 

Court in the context of an education case, “It is unwise for courts to 

shortcut procedural requirements necessary to fully and fairly address 

the substantive issues in cases of great public significance, when those 

same procedures would be required without pause in cases of lesser 

magnitude.” Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 454 (Mo. 

1994). In fact, I was unable to find any case dealing with a state’s 

education clause that reached this important issue when the parties did 

not brief it on appeal. 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion also cites the political activity of the 

other branches of government as a reason to address the issues that 

were not appealed. I would answer the justification given by Justice 

Mansfield’s opinion by noting the judicial branch is different from the 

other branches of government. The legislative and executive branches 

set their own agenda and decide what issues they want to address. The 

judicial branch is different. We do not decide issues unless a party in a 

legal action has raised the issues in the district court, has fully briefed 

the issues on appeal, and has asked us to reach the issues on appeal. In 

short, we do not set our own agenda. 

We only decide issues raised and briefed by the parties. To do 

otherwise is nothing more than Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the 

concurring opinion of Chief Justice Cady setting their own error 

preservation rules to reach issues not urged on appeal. Here, the State 

did not brief the issues reached by Justice Mansfield’s opinion and the 

concurring opinion of Chief Justice Cady in this appeal. Moreover, the 

State did not ask us to reach those issues. The mere fact the legislative 
85

and executive branches are dealing with education issues does not give 

this court the license to weigh in on those issues.

This important case calls for judicial restraint. Members of the 

court should not be espousing their own views on issues not raised or 

briefed in this court. Accordingly, I would remand the case to the district 

court for further proceedings on the constitutional claims.

Hecht and Appel, JJ., join this dissent.
86

#08–2006, King v. State

APPEL, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

I concur with Justice Wiggins’s opinion. In light of the virtually 

unprecedented determination of Justice Mansfield’s opinion to reach out 

to uphold the district court on grounds other than those decided by the 

district court and that the parties chose not to present on appeal, I 

proceed to state my views on why these alternative grounds do not 

provide a basis for dismissal in this case at the very inception of the 

lawsuit.

In my view, education is a fundamental interest or right under the 

Iowa Constitution. Deprivations of a basic or adequate education should 

be subject to heightened judicial review, and other material differences in 

education should be subject to judicial review under a meaningful 

rational basis test. I further believe the pleading, though not very clear, 

is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss at this stage of the 

proceedings under our well-established liberal pleading rules. I would 

therefore reverse the district court and remand the case for further 

proceedings.

I. Overview of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

The plaintiffs in this case are from both rural and urban school 

districts alleging shortcomings in the education provided by the State. 

They allege, among other things, that the State has failed to provide them 

with “equal access to an effective education” and that the State has failed 

“to establish and maintain an adequate education delivery system.”

The plaintiffs’ petition in this case alleges the State’s educational 

requirements and accreditation standards do not ensure that students 

“will be able to meet and exceed the technological, informational and 
87

communication demands of society so that they can be prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further learning and productive employment in a 

global economy.” They claim that many Iowa students “are not prepared 

to enter the workforce or post-secondary education without additional 

training or remediation.”

The plaintiffs support their adequacy claim with various statistics. 

They allege, for instance, that under the National Assessment of 

Academic Progress standards, only thirty-three percent of Iowa fourth 

grade students are proficient in math, and only thirty-seven percent of 

students are proficient in reading. It is alleged that similar proficiency 

levels are achieved for eighth graders.

The plaintiffs also allege that the smallest school districts in Iowa 

are disadvantaged in that they have teachers with less experience and 

that the teachers have nearly double the teaching assignments compared 

with teachers in larger school districts. They also claim rural students 

have far fewer curriculum units available to students. They allege that 

there is a disparity in educational outcomes based upon where one lives.

The plaintiffs assert that the lack of adequate education violates 

the education provisions of article IX of the Iowa Constitution; the 

privileges and immunities clause of the Iowa Constitution; the due 

process clause of the Iowa Constitution; and statutory standards 

established in Iowa Code section 256.37, which declares that it is the 

policy of the state “to provide an education system that prepares the 

children of this state to meet and exceed the technological, informational, 

and communications demands of our society.” The plaintiffs seek 

declaratory relief as well as a writ of mandamus, and the district court 

was urged to retain continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing 

its orders and judgments.
88

II. Historical Roles of National and State Government in 

Educating Children.

A. Introduction. In order to provide the necessary context for 

consideration of the constitutional issues raised in Justice Mansfield’s 

opinion (but not in the appellate briefs), I review the contrasting roles of 

the state and national governments in the provision of education to 

children. As will be seen below, although the national government 

traditionally has supported education of children through land grants 

and financial assistance, the responsibility for providing education to 

children has been the duty of state and local governments.

B. The Limited Role of the National Government in the 

Education of Children. The education of children had little to do with 

the American Revolution. The grievances against King George III in the 

Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with the education of 

children. The education of children was not mentioned in the Articles of 

Confederation or in the United States Constitution. The only mention of 

education in the debates at the constitutional convention was a 

suggestion by Madison and Pickney that Congress be expressly 

authorized to establish a university, a proposal that was rejected. James 

Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 477–78, 

639 (Bicentennial ed., W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. 1987); see Lawrence A. 

Cremin, American Education: The National Experience 1783–1876, at 127 

(1980) [hereinafter Cremin]. 

The lack of discussion of education of children in revolutionary and 

constitutional contexts does not mean that the founders were 

unconcerned about education. The contrary is true. From the very 

beginning, the founders were advocates of expanding children’s 

education.
89

For example, Thomas Jefferson, while serving in the Virginia 

legislature, was a fierce advocate of a Bill for the More General Diffusion 

of Knowledge, which would have established a system of free schools 

supported by tuition and scholarships for poor boys. Ian C. Friedman, 

Education Reform 8 (2004). In a letter to George Washington, Jefferson 

explained it was axiomatic that liberty could never be safe but “in the 

hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain 

degree of instruction.” Gordon C. Lee, Learning and Liberty: The 

Jeffersonian Tradition in Education, in Crusade Against Ignorance: 

Thomas Jefferson on Education 19 (1961). “This,” Jefferson wrote, “is the 

business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” Id. 

John Adams was the principal author of the Massachusetts 

Constitution of 1780. As adopted, the Massachusetts Constitution of 

1780 provided, “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused 

generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the 

preservation of their rights and liberties,” the legislature has a duty to 

“cherish” the interests of science and literature. Mass. Const. of 1780, 

pt. II, ch. 5, § 2.

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and 

member of the Continental Congress, addressed the Pennsylvania 

legislature with his essays, “A Plan for the Establishment of Public 

Schools and the Diffusion of Knowledge in Pennsylvania” and “Thoughts 

upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic.” Frederick M. Hess, 

The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in 

Yesterday’s Ideas 44 (2010). Rush called for a free school in every 

township and universal education at public expense, reasoning that all 

citizens, rich and poor, would have a role in selecting the nation’s leaders 
90

and that, as a result, everyone was entitled to at least a minimal amount 

of education in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Id. at 44–45.

Jefferson, Adams, and Rush had at least three things in common. 

First, they were advocates of education of children. Second, they saw 

education of children as linked to the successful operation of democratic 

government. But for my purposes, the most important point is that they 

viewed the states as the governmental structure to deliver education to 

citizens. 

During the formative years of our country, the federal government 

supported the education of children by providing resources to assist 

state and local governments in providing education to citizens. First, the 

federal government provided public land for school uses in the states 

through the Land Ordinance of 1785, which required land to be set aside 

for school uses. 28 Journals of the Continental Congress 378 (May 20, 

1785). Second, in its organizations of the territories and admission of 

states, Congress demanded educational progress. In the Northwest 

Ordinance of 1787, Congress required public education to be “forever 

encouraged” in the covered territories. Northwest Ordinance, 32 

Journals of the Continental Congress 340 (July 13, 1787). The federal 

government itself, however, had no direct role in the education of 

children, but simply provided important financial support through land 

grants to states and local governments who bore the responsibility of 

providing education.

The encouragement of public education took on added meaning 

when a territory applied to become a state. Under Article IV, Section 4 of 

the United States Constitution, Congress was empowered to admit states 

only if they had a “Republican Form of Government.” U.S. Const. art. IV, 

§ 4. As states were admitted to the Union, it became “a working 
91

assumption that public education was an essential feature of a 

republican government based upon the will of the people.” David Tyack, 

Thomas James & Aaron Benavot, Law and the Shaping of Public 

Education, 1785–1954, at 20 (1987). 

Prominent antebellum education leaders such as Horace Mann of 

Massachusetts, Calvin Wiley of North Carolina, Caleb Mills of Indiana, 

Samuel Lewis of Ohio, John D. Pierce of Michigan, Robert Breckinridge of 

Kentucky, Ninian Edwards of Illinois, Henry Barnard of Connecticut and 

Rhode Island, and John Swett of California all recognized the role of the 

states in providing education to children and youth. See David B. Tyack, 

Turning Points in American Educational History 125 (1967). These 

prominent advocates of universal education sought to advance their 

cause not through pontifications in the halls of Congress, but in the local 

lyceum and through mechanisms of state and local government.

C. The Duty of State Government to Provide Education to 

Children. In contrast to the limited role of the federal government, the 

states had direct responsibility of providing education. The difference in 

involvement between the federal government and the state governments 

on educational matters was a night and day contrast until very recently. 

Further, education traditionally has been one of the most important 

functions of state government. A brief survey of Iowa history 

demonstrates these points. 

While revolutionary leaders tended to emphasize education of the 

elite, the movement for universal education through common schools 

emphasizing republican virtues began in the early nineteenth century 

and was in full bloom during the 1830s as the movement for expanded 

suffrage advanced. The focus of the common school movement was on 

state and local governments. See generally Frederick M. Binder, The Age 
92

of the Common School, 1830–1865 (1974); Cremin; Carl F. Kaestle, Pillars 

of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780–1860

(1983).

Even in the territorial days, the importance of education as a 

responsibility of territorial government was recognized in Iowa. Governor 

Henry Dodge of the Wisconsin Territory (which included Iowa at the time) 

recognized the relation between education and democratic government. 

In his first inaugural address, Governor Dodge, in urging the territorial 

assembly to provide for the establishment of local academies for the 

education of youth, spoke in obligatory terms: 

It is a duty we owe to the rising generation to endeavor to 

devise means to improve the condition of those that are to 

succeed us; the permanence of our institutions, must 

depend upon the intelligence of the great mass of the people.

1 Benjamin F. Shambaugh, The Messages and Proclamations of the 

Governors of Iowa 9 (1903) [hereinafter Shambaugh].

Once Iowa became a territory of its own apart from Wisconsin, 

Robert Lucas, the first Iowa territorial governor and a delegate of the 

1844 constitutional convention, was a strong advocate of education. In 

his first message to the legislature of the Territory of Iowa, Lucas 

addressed education and particularly the need for a system of free 

common schools. John C. Parish, Iowa Biographical Series: Robert Lucas

286 (1907) [hereinafter Parish]. Lucas stated: “There is no subject to 

which I wish to call your attention more emphatically, than the subject of 

establishing, at the commencement of our political existence, a well 

digested system of common schools.” 1 Shambaugh at 78; John Purcell 

Street, Iowa Department of Public Instruction: Its Origins and 

Development, 30 Annals of Iowa 397, 398 (1950) [hereinafter Street]. 

Lucas called on the territorial assembly to “build up a good system as 
93

fast as the population and wealth of the territory would warrant.” 1 

Clarence Ray Aurner, History of Education in Iowa 368 (1914) 

[hereinafter Aurner]. The first territorial assembly responded to his call 

by enacting legislation calling for the establishment of common schools 

in school districts in the respective counties. 1 Edgar R. Harlan, A 

Narrative History of the People of Iowa 133 (1931) [hereinafter Harlan]. 

Yet, territorial government did not provide the ideal framework for 

development of a system of local education. Advocates of statehood 

appealed to the parents of children, noting that lands reserved by the 

federal government for education purposes could not be obtained without 

statehood. James Alton James, Constitution and Admission of Iowa into 

the Union 15 (1900). Once Iowa was admitted to statehood, Iowa received 

a grant of five hundred thousand acres of land from the United States for 

school purposes. George Chandler, Iowa and the Nation 17 (Chicago, A. 

Flanagan 1895). 

It is thus not surprising that education was emphasized in the first 

Iowa Constitutions. Article X of the constitutions of 1844 and 1846 dealt 

with education. The 1844 and 1846 constitutions provided that the 

general assembly “shall encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion 

of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement” through 

“a system of common schools.” Iowa Const. art. X, §§ 2–3 (1846); Iowa 

Const. art. X, §§ 2–3 (1844). According to a contemporaneous account of 

the 1846 constitutional convention:

Most ample provision is made for educating the rising 

generation. This is a feature which cannot be too highly 

prized.—It speaks volumes for the character of our 

population, and argues well for the prosperity of the people 

and the success of the great enterprise in which they are 

about to embark. Let the moral and mental culture 

[unintelligible in original] and the free institutions of our 

country will be safe in their hands. 
94

Fragments of the Debates of the Iowa Constitutional Conventions of 1844 

and 1846, at 339 (Benjamin F. Shambaugh ed., 1900) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

The inclusion of provisions in the early Iowa Constitutions related 

to education was not surplusage or cosmetic features. One of the 

advantages of statehood was the establishment of machinery to develop a 

coherent educational system. Beginning with the admission of Ohio as a 

state in 1803, Congress required that all subsequent states provide for 

education in their state constitutions as a condition of admission to 

statehood. Gerald Unks, The Illusion of Intrusion: A Chronicle of Federal 

Aid to Public Education, 49 Educ. F. 133, 136 (1985). After 1815, only 

New Mexico attempted to gain admission into the Union without an 

education clause, and Congress refused to go along. New Mexico then 

added an education clause and was subsequently admitted into the 

Union. See Inst. for Educ. Equity & Opportunity, Education in the 50 

States: A Deskbook of the History of State Constitutions and Laws about 

Education 29 (2008).

The very first act of the First General Assembly of Iowa was a 

measure related to school funds, demonstrating the importance of 

education to the fledgling state. 1 Aurner at 16–17. The importance of 

the educational function of government is reflected by the fact that the 

Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, Charles Mason, was a member 

of the first Iowa Board of Education. 2 Aurner at 415 n.105.

The state’s first Superintendent of Education, Thomas Hart 

Benton, Jr., a nephew of the famous Senator from Missouri, was a 

national leader in the education movement, serving on the executive 

committee of the American Association for the Advancement of 

Education. Street, 30 Annals of Iowa at 400; Proceedings of the Fifth 
95

Session of the American Association for the Advancement of Education 3 

(New York, Hartford Press 1856). Benton served as president of the 

Education Convention of Iowa, which met in 1848 in the old stone capitol 

at Iowa City, “to promote by every laudable means the diffusion of 

knowledge in regard to education and especially to aid in establishing 

and perpetuating a system of common school instruction.” Parish at

286–87. Benton later remarked in an 1861 report to the board of 

education that “[a] wagon can better dispense with one wheel than a 

neighborhood with the school house.” R.A. Harkness, Notes on Iowa 

Educational Work from 1860 to 1888, 12 Iowa Normal Monthly No. 7, at 

298 (1889). One of Benton’s successors, Oran Fanville, remarked in 

1865 that “universal education is the central idea of republicanism.” Id.

at 299. 

Iowa’s early state governors, like Robert Lucas, were advocates for 

education. In 1848, Governor Ansel Briggs recognized the constitutional 

significance of education, stating:

The people of Iowa have ever manifested an earnest and 

commendable zeal in the spread of education, and, 

especially, in the establishment of an efficient and 

permanent system of Common Schools. Of such prominent 

importance is this subject in their estimation, that they have 

made the most ample provisions in the Constitution for the 

spread of education and the support of common 

schools . . . .

1 Shambaugh at 370. 

In 1852, Governor Hempstead, who was also a delegate of the 1844 

constitutional convention, addressed education in his first biennial 

message to the Iowa legislature. He noted that “no subject can claim a 

more pressing interest than that of public instruction.” Id. at 430. He 

further declared: 

The first great object should be to place within the reach of 

every child in the state, the opportunity of acquiring those 
96

indispensable elements of education, which shall fit him for 

the enlightened discharge of civil and social duties to which 

he may be called.

Id. at 431. Governor Hempstead further emphasized the constitutional 

obligations of the state, noting that the Iowa Constitution required that 

the general assembly encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of 

intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement. Id. 

In 1856, Governor James Grimes emphasized education in his 

inaugural address. Governor Grimes stated that “[t]o accomplish these 

high aims of government, the first requisite is ample provision for the 

education of the youth of this State.” 2 Shambaugh at 7. He further 

declared that “[t]he State should see to it that the elements of education, 

like the elements of universal nature, are above, around, and beneath 

all.” Id. Governor Grimes noted that “[i]t is agreed that the safety and 

perpetuity of our republican institutions depends upon the diffusion of 

intelligence among the masses of the people.” Id.

In 1856, the general assembly authorized the governor to appoint a 

commission of three persons to revise and improve the school laws of 

Iowa and to report to the general assembly. Street, 30 Annals of Iowa at 

402. The commission was headed by Horace Mann, the President of 

Antioch College in Ohio and one of the most noted educators in the 

United States. Id. Mann strongly believed in the “[a]bsolute right to an 

education of every human being that comes into the world, and which, of 

course, proves the correlative duty of every government to see that the 

means of that education are provided for all.” Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 

1241, 1266 (Cal. 1971) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The commission investigated the state of education in other states and 

ultimately issued a report containing its findings and recommendations. 

1 Aurner at 31.
97

The report of the Mann Commission declared that every youth was 

entitled to an education “in the elements of knowledge.” Id. at 32. 

Further, anyone desirous of further progress should be offered necessary 

opportunities. Id. The report called for provision of common schools, 

high schools, and the university. Id. at 33. It called for supervision to be 

provided by a state superintendent of public instruction, subject to the 

advice of a state board of education. Id. at 35. Perhaps because of 

Mann’s association with the state, a commentator two decades later 

declared that “Iowa may be called the Massachusetts of the West. . . . 

[T]he cause nearest the hearts of her people is ‘universal education.’ ” 

Editorial Preface, 12 Iowa Normal Monthly No. 7, at 1 (1889).

At the constitutional convention of 1857, considerable emphasis 

was placed on education. Discussing education, James Wilson declared:

We know that after all the intelligence of the people is the 

great bulwark to the stability and permanency of our 

institutions, and looking upon it in that light, it is our duty, 

our absolute and imperative duty, to provide the best 

method and the best means for carrying into effect the 

common school system of the state.

2 The Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Iowa 750 

(W. Blair Lord reporter, Davenport, Luse, Lane & Co. 1857) [hereinafter 

Debates], available at http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/ 

collections/law-library/iaconst/. Similarly, J.C. Hall asserted that “[t]he 

educational department of our State is a very important one. It embraces 

one-half of the inhabitants of the State, and for good or for evil it is 

productive of the most important effects upon our population.” Id. at 

725. Further, George W. Ells urged:

[I]n laying the foundation for an educational system, we 

must discard all narrow views and prejudices, and not only 

provide for the wants of the present generation, but for all 

future generations. I desire to see the common schools of 
98

this State so constituted that a thorough knowledge of all the 

natural sciences will be taught in the most practical manner. 

Should this point be attained they will contrast most 

favorably with the superficial education that characterizes a 

vast number of graduates of chartered colleges of these 

United States. 

1 Debates at 602.

In light of the emphasis the Iowa framers placed on education, two 

divisions were adopted that dealt with the subject. The first division 

dealt primarily with the responsibilities of a state board of education, 

which was vested with authority to oversee the development of public 

education in the state. Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1 (1857 original version). 

The second division related to financing of public education. Id. art. IX, 

div. 2. With respect to the constitutional provision that “the General 

Assembly shall encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of 

intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement,” id. art. IX, 

div. 2, § 3, one scholar has noted that “[a]s a positive provision no clause 

has had a wider application in popular benefits,” Harlan at 185. It is 

observed that “[a]n educational system, based upon common schools . . . 

was one of the cornerstones of the new commonwealth” and that Iowa 

was taking a stand that at the time was distinctively “progressive.” 

Harlan at 185. 

From 1857 to 1864, the state board of education performed its 

constitutional duties. In 1864, however, the newly elected governor, 

William Stone, recommended abolition of the state board of education. 

Governor Stone stated the purpose of creating the board of education 

was to establish a permanent and satisfactory system of public education

in Iowa. 3 Shambaugh at 7. Governor Stone urged the discontinuation 

of the board because the purpose had been accomplished. Id. In 1864, 
99

the general assembly abolished the board of education and established a 

superintendent of public instruction. See 1864 Iowa Acts ch. 52, § 1.

Nothing in the historical record suggests that the abolition of the 

board of education reflected a lessened constitutional commitment to 

education. Experience under the 1857 constitution demonstrated that 

vesting legislative power over educational matters with the board, but the 

power of the purse with the general assembly, proved awkward at best. 

But the commitment to education remained. According to a leading Iowa 

historian: 

There was a belief so widespread as to be almost universal 

that, narrow as were the powers of the State, instruction so 

differed from all things else that every child in the 

community was entitled to a chance at the public cost to 

obtain the essentials of the thing called education.

I George F. Parker, Iowa Pioneer Foundations 455 (1940).

Governors subsequently continued to be strong advocates for 

education after the state board was abolished. Governor Cyrus Clay 

Carpenter in his first inaugural address on January 11, 1872, stated in 

connection with education that “[n]ext to political freedom, the most 

important element of a good government is an intelligent people.” 4 

Shambaugh at 8. While recognizing the progress that had been made, he 

called for the establishment of a Normal School, or teachers college, to 

train teachers for their important task. Id. at 8–9.

The relationship between education and freedom was repeated by 

Governor Buren Robinson Sherman in his January 12, 1882 inaugural 

address. Governor Sherman declared: 

The education of the masses is the surest reliance of the 

State, and everywhere free schools exist. Through their 

powerful enlightening influences and strong progression the 

integrity of our political fabric, the security to the enterprise 

of the citizen, and the equality and happiness of the people 
100

are solidly assured. Popular education has become firmly 

entrenched in the confidence of the nation, and there is no 

feature of our whole system so near to the general heart, nor 

regarded with such affectionate anxiety as the free public 

schools of the country.

5 Shambaugh at 241. 

Further, Governor Sherman observed “our educational system” 

through all time “will prove the very sheet-anchor to our liberties, as the 

free-ballot is the corner-stone to our political structure.” Id. at 242. 

Governor William Larrabee took up education in his first inaugural 

address on January 14, 1886. He declared, “If it is true, as I hold it to 

be, that ignorance, poverty and crime are intimately related, it is the duty 

of every state to educate.” 6 Shambaugh at 14. He noted that “[a] 

republic can survive war, famine and pestilence, but it cannot survive 

the intelligence of its people.” Id. at 15. 

In the Progressive Era, many educational reformers emphasized 

the need to eliminate politics from education, develop a regime of experts, 

and offer highly differentiated education to youth based upon their ability 

and future role in society. It was an era of the “Education Commission.” 

Iowa had three of them. A school commission in 1907 recommended, 

among other things, approval of curriculum by the superintendent of 

public instruction. Street, 30 Annals of Iowa at 445. In 1911, the 

“Better Iowa Schools Commission” met and recommended increased 

power and efficiency in the department of public instruction, the 

employment of a “rural school inspector” under the department of public 

instruction, and that the office of superintendent of public instruction be 

converted into a nonpartisan electoral post. Id. at 446. In 1939, a 

school code commission reviewed the laws of Iowa and produced a 

report; a second school code commission was convened in 1941 and 

produced another report. Id. at 447–48. The latter code commissions 
101

called for strengthening the county administration of schools, that the 

cost of transporting pupils be paid in whole or in part by the state, that 

one quarter of the cost of public school education should be paid from 

state funds to relieve property taxes and “equalize educational 

opportunity,” and “[t]hat teachers be given greater security of tenure.” 

Id. at 448–49.

While the philosophy of the progressive movement emphasized 

different themes than the common school movement, the emphasis on 

education as being critical to democratic values was a constant. As 

noted by Iowa Superintendent of Public Instruction P. E. McClenahan, 

“[e]ducation is a function of the state, and popular education is the only 

means of attaining social, political, and individual freedom.” P. E. 

McClenahan, Report of the Department of Public Instruction 9 (June 30, 

1922).

The emphasis on the need for quality education surfaced again in 

the post WWII years. In September of 1954, President Eisenhower sent a 

letter to all state governors calling for statewide conferences on the 

status of education, and Iowa responded with a statewide conference in 

Des Moines in December 1954. Letter from Dwight D. Eisenhower to 

Governors (September 20, 1954) in Program from the Iowa State 

Conference on Education (Dec. 9–10, 1954). In the 1960s, Iowa’s 

Department of Public Instruction called for an “educational revolution,” 

noting that education is no longer “a purely local concern” but “a state

responsibility.” Iowa Dep’t of Public Instruction, 63d Biennial Report 16 

(1966) (emphasis added). Governor Robert Ray in 1981–1982 served as 

chair of the Education Commission of the States, an organization 

dedicated to help states develop effective policies and practices in public 
102

education. See Education Commission of the States (Mar. 21, 2012), 

http://www.ecs.org.

In recent years, there has been what has been labeled a standards 

and accountability movement in education. In 1983, President Reagan’s 

Department of Education issued a report entitled, “A Nation at Risk: The 

Imperative for Educational Reform,” which called for higher standards 

and more accountability in education generally. In 1989, President 

George Bush convened a meeting of the nation’s governors in 

Charlottesville, Virginia to address the perceived shortcomings in 

education. Recently, a summit on education was held attended by 

national educational leaders and Iowa educators and administrators. 

Governor Branstad, who has found inspiration in Robert Lucas’s 

traditional commitment to education,33 has proposed important changes 

to the Iowa education system, which will be the subject of public 

discussion and potential legislative action in the coming years.

This brief and nonexhaustive overview demonstrates that, in 

contrast to the federal government, education has played a central role in 

Iowa state government. While the federal government from time to time 

has shown an interest in education and has been indirectly involved in 

fostering it, the states have performed the fundamentally different role of 

primary provider of education.

From a historical perspective, the provision of education by Iowa 

state government has been seen as one of its primary and most 

celebrated functions. Recognition of the centrality and importance of the 

role of state government in providing education has transcended our 

 33In his inaugural address in 1987, Governor Branstad, in calling for 

educational reform, stated that “our commitment to education is not new” and cited 

“our first territorial Governor, Robert Lucas.” 1987 S.J. 94. Governor Branstad further 

made reference to the state’s “historic commitment to education.” Id. at 95.
103

political parties and has been passed on from one generation of Iowa 

political leaders to another up to and including our present political 

leadership. 

III. Relationship of Education to Democratic Government, 

Personal Liberty, and Human Dignity.

The historical centrality of education to our state cannot be 

underestimated. In order to fully understand the importance of 

education, however, a review of the three important functions of 

education provides additional perspective. First, education is vital to 

democratic government. Second, education is a prerequisite for 

meaningful enjoyment of fundamental constitutional rights, including 

enjoyment of “life, liberty, and property.” Third, it is an essential part of 

the development of an autonomous personality that is a prerequisite for 

human dignity.

At the dawn of our nation, de Tocqueville recognized that “the 

instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of a 

democratic process.” 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 342 

(D. Appleton & Co. 1904). Thomas Mann emphasized that education can 

never be less than such

“as is indispensable for the civil functions of a witness or a 

juror; as is necessary for the voter in municipal and national 

affairs; and finally, as is requisite for the faithful and 

conscientious discharge of all those duties which devolve 

upon the inheritor of a portion of the sovereignty of this great 

republic.”

McDuffy v. Sec’y of Exec. Office of Educ., 615 N.E.2d 516, 555 (Mass. 

1993) (quoting The Massachusetts System of Common Schools: Tenth 

Annual Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education 17 (1849)). 

President Grant drove the point home when speaking in Des Moines on 
104

September 25, 1875, when he declared that “the free school is the 

promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation.” 

Jacob Armstrong Swisher, Iowa Biographical Series: Leonard Fletcher 

Parker 69 (1927). Grant further noted that if another contest of national 

existence were to arrive in the future, it would be “between patriotism 

and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and 

ignorance on the other.” Id. at 69–70.

The relationship of education to democratic government was 

recognized by John W. Studebaker, a distinguished Iowan who served as 

Des Moines School Superintendent before being appointed United States 

Commissioner of Education. Studebaker observed that “good 

government through democratic processes can be preserved . . . only by 

definitely planned development of the means of public enlightenment.” 

John W. Studebaker, The American Way: Democracy at Work in the 

Des Moines Forums 15–16 (1935).

The United States Supreme Court recognized the linkage between 

education and democracy in San Antonio Independent School District v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 1298, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 44 

(1973), when it noted that democracy depends upon “an informed 

electorate: a voter cannot cast his ballot intelligently unless his reading 

skills and thought processes have been adequately developed.” A 

corollary of the right to vote is the right to be educated so as to exercise 

that right in an effective manner. See Susan H. Bitensky, Theoretical 

Foundations for a Right to Education Under the U.S. Constitution: A 

Beginning to the End of the National Education Crisis, 86 Nw. U. L. Rev. 

550, 606 (1992) [hereinafter Bitensky].

Certainly the parade of Iowa’s governors cited earlier would 

wholeheartedly endorse the concept that education is critically important 
105

to the functioning of democratic government. Today, without an 

educated people, spectacle, celebrity culture, escalating emotional 

outburst, and demand for instant gratification will replace rationality, 

tolerance, and mutual respect in the voting booths and in the public 

square.

In addition, education is now critical to meaningful enjoyment of 

life in Iowa and the United States. The prospects of a person who is 

uneducated are now marginal at best. Farming is increasingly 

industrialized and requires knowledge of markets, fertilizers, hybrids, 

and planning techniques. Manufacturing jobs are no longer unskilled, 

but require sophisticated knowledge, training, and skills. Ditches are no 

longer dug by hand. If a citizen is to have a meaningful right to enjoy the 

constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, and property, the 

citizen must have an adequate education. Justice Cardozo captured the 

idea in his typically lyrical prose: 

“We are free only if we know, and so in proportion to our 

knowledge. There is no freedom without choice, and there is 

no choice without knowledge—or none that is not illusory. 

Implicit, therefore, in the very notion of liberty is the liberty 

of the mind to absorb and to beget.”

Bitensky, 86 Nw. U. L. Rev. at 550 (quoting Benjamin N. Cardozo, The 

Paradoxes of Legal Science 104 (photo reprint 1982) (1928)).

The importance of education in empowering individuals to 

participate meaningfully in life did not escape school officials in Iowa 

small towns. For instance, the bold statement “Knowledge is Power” was 

emblazoned on the third story of a school house in Persia, Iowa in 1885. 

See Camilla Dieber and Peggy Beedle, Country Schools for Iowa 9 (2002). 

Finally, education is essential to the development of an 

autonomous individual that is the essence of human dignity. The 
106

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been ratified by the 

United States, declares that the right to education is a human right and 

that the purpose of the human right is to provide for the “full 

development of the human personality.” Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, art. 26, § 2, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 

10, 1948).34 As one commentator has noted, education “takes on the 

status of a human right because it is integral to and enhances human 

dignity through its fruits of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding” and 

“a prerequisite for individuals to function as fully human beings in 

modern society.” Richard Pierre Claude, The Right to Education and 

Human Rights Education, in Human Rights in the World Community: 

Issues and Actions 211 (Richard Pierre Claude & Burns H. Veston eds., 

3d ed. 2006). A lack of education severely undermines the capacity of 

the individual to make meaningful life choices with respect to marriage 

and family, self-expression, political voice, religious observance, and 

economic role and ambition.35

 34My citation to the education provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights has drawn criticism today. The criticism might more appropriately be aimed at 

Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting committee that produced the Declaration, 

or to the members of the United States Senate, which ratified it. I recognize that the 

Declaration was designed to be nonbinding—indeed, the decision to use the term 

“Declaration” was modeled on the United States Declaration of Independence. Of 

course, I do not suggest that the participants in the Iowa constitutional conventions 

relied on the Declaration, which was approved a hundred years later. I do suggest, 

however, that the Declaration reinforces the widely accepted view that education is 

broadly regarded as a basic human right and that it is integrally related to the 

development of the individual. That point, it seems, has not been assailed.

35In looking at legal questions from a broad perspective for nonbinding but 

instructive lessons, I am in good company. The leaders of the American Revolution and 

the founding fathers certainly did. See, e.g., Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of 

the American Revolution 23–44 (Enlarged ed. 1992) (citing extensive use of foreign 

authorities in publications associated with the American Revolution); James Madison, 

Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 54, 59, 63, 76, 83, 100, 126, 

132, 136–37, 141, 143, 145, 161, 205, 207, 214–15, 223, 241, 255–56, 307, 334, 359, 

364, 418, 463 (Bicentennial ed., W.W. Norton & Co. 1987) (discussing French judiciary; 

pluralistic military command in Holland; Roman tribunals; the union of England and 
107

_______________________________

Scotland; Dutch seduction into the views of France; lessons of Dutch, Swiss, Helvetic, 

Germanic, Lycian, and Belgic confederacies; dangers of corruption, as illustrated by 

leadership in Sweden, France, and England; Polish and German elections; analogy to 

the law of nations in fashioning relationship between the state and federal governments; 

experience in Persia, Austria, France, Switzerland, and Russia; commerce involving 

France, England, and Spain; means of defense against a foreign danger in Rome and 

Europe as examples of instruments of tyranny; importance of an efficient government, 

as illustrated by German and Grecian experiences; Polish elections; military cooperation 

between France and Holland; Athenians and foreign affairs; the Kingdom of France as 

governing by force; separation of powers and the Ephori at Sparta; structures in 

preexisting state constitutions; England and Great Britain); see also The Federalist No. 

18 (Alexander Hamilton & James Madison) (stating the “Achaean league . . . was 

another society of Grecian republics, which supplies us with valuable instruction”), 

No. 19 (Alexander Hamilton & James Madison) (referencing the governments of Greece, 

Sweden, Germany, and the United Netherlands), No. 39 (James Madison) (discussing 

the characteristics of a republican form of government and comparing the governments 

of Holland, Venice, Poland, and England), No. 43 (James Madison) (discussing Sparta, 

Greece, and Crete), No. 52 (James Madison) (referencing Irish elections), No. 75

(Alexander Hamilton) (citing examples of the Roman Tribuneship, the Polish Diet, and 

the States-General of the Netherlands). In addition, the founders were all familiar with 

international authorities such as Vattel, Grotius, Montesquieu, Burlamaqui, and 

Pufendorf. See generally Donald S. Lutz, The Relative Influence of European Writers on 

Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought, 78 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 189, 193–94 

(1984).

References to international law and experience have been made by distinguished 

Justices of the United States Supreme Court, including, but not limited to, Justices 

Marshall, Story, Holmes, Frankfurter, Jackson, Rehnquist, Breyer, Ginsberg, and 

Kennedy. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 577–78, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 1199–

1200, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1, 26–27 (2005) (Kennedy, J.); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 

344, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 2347, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304, 342 (2003) (Ginsburg, J., concurring); 

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 976–77, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2405, 138 L. Ed. 2d 

914, 970–71 (1997) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 

718 n.16, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2266 n.16, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 786 n.16 (1997) (Rehnquist, 

C.J.); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 651–52, 72 S. Ct. 863, 

878, 96 L. Ed. 1153, 1207–08 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); Rochin v. California, 342 

U.S. 165, 170–71 & n.4, 72 S. Ct. 205, 208–09 & n.4, 96 L. Ed. 183, 189 & n.4 (1952) 

(Frankfurter, J.); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 155, 158, 41 S. Ct. 458, 459–60, 65 L. 

Ed. 865, 870, 872 (1921) (Holmes, J.); Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110, 

128–36, 3 L. Ed. 504, 510 (1814) (Marshall, C.J.); Brown, 12 U.S. at 131–38, 3 L. Ed. at 

511–14 (Story, J., dissenting).

Similarly, state court cases have often cited international norms in a wide 

variety of cases. See, e.g., Sterling v. Cupp, 625 P.2d 123, 131 & n.21 (Or. 1981) (citing 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in reviewing constitutionality of state law 

allowing female officers to perform body searches of male inmates); Eggert v. City of 

Seattle, 505 P.2d 801, 802 (Wash. 1973) (citing the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights in vindicating the right to freedom of movement); Pauley v. Kelley, 255 S.E.2d 

859, 864 n.5 (W. Va. 1979) (citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 

support for state constitutional right to education).
108

I am firmly convinced that education is not just an important 

interest. It is a one-of-a-kind interest. It goes to the very heart of 

democratic government, to the essence of enjoyment of life itself, and to 

the core of human dignity. Without education, our democratic 

government will be undermined, the quality of life will deteriorate beyond 

recognition, and the realization of autonomous personality required for 

human dignity will become virtually impossible.

IV. Overview of Iowa Constitutional Provisions.

A. Positive Educational Provisions of the Iowa Constitution. 

As indicated above, the United States Constitution says nothing about 

education. This is not surprising since it was universally assumed by 

_______________________________

The framers of the Iowa Constitution applied a broad perspective to their task as 

well, specifically in the field of education. George W. Ells, in debating the importance of 

education during the 1857 constitutional convention, observed:

[I]n those countries of Europe where education has taken the deepest 

root, and been the most generally diffused among the masses, that the 

people are correspondingly steady, firm and abiding in their attachment 

to free and liberal institutions of all kinds. The Germans are a striking 

illustration of the truth of this assertion. With them, education is the 

rule, and ignorance the exception; while with the volatile Frenchman, the 

reverse is true.

1 Debates at 602. It is not surprising that our caselaw has on occasion cited maxims or 

norms of international law. See Langlas v. Iowa Life Ins. Co., 245 Iowa 717, 718, 63 

N.W.2d 885, 888 (1954) (citing international law treatise in case involving insurance 

claim arising out of Korean war); Case v. Olson, 234 Iowa 869, 874, 14 N.W.2d 717, 720 

(1944) (citing international law of war in case involving application of soldiers’ 

preference clause in civil service statute); Hill v. Baker, 32 Iowa 302, 310 (1871) 

(execution of deed held invalid as contrary to international law); Morrison v. Springer, 15 

Iowa 304, 316 (1863) (citing maxims of international law in jurisdictional matter). 

Consistent with the legal traditions exemplified by the framers of both the Iowa 

and Federal Constitutions, the University of Iowa College of Law has a program in 

international and comparative law. Its website states that international and 

comparative law “provides an essential theoretical foundation for all lawyers by 

affording unique insight into the nature of law and legal process.” See The University of 

Iowa College of Law, International and Comparative Law Program (last visited April 5, 

2012), http://www.law.uiowa.edu/international/.
109

the founders that the education of children and youth was the obligation 

of the state and local government.

Article IX of the Iowa Constitution of 1857 dealing with education 

contains two divisions. The first division provides, among other things, 

that “[t]he educational interest of the State, including Common Schools 

. . . shall be under the management of a Board of Education.” Iowa 

Const. art. IX, div. l, § 1. The board was required to “provide for the 

education of all the youths of the State, through a system of Common 

Schools.” Id. art. IX, div. 1, § 12.

Article IX of the 1857 Iowa Constitution also contains a second 

division. The first sentence of section three of the second division 

parallels the substantive provisions of the 1846 constitution by providing 

that “[t]he General Assembly shall encourage, by all suitable means, the 

promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural 

improvement.” Id. art. IX, div. 2, § 3.

The second sentence of section three is more complicated than the 

first sentence. It provides, in relevant part, that the federal funds, funds 

from estates with no heirs, and funds that the general assembly may 

provide, “shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of Common 

schools throughout the State.” Id.

During the debates surrounding the education articles in the 1857 

constitution, the convention rejected a proposal that schools should be 

“free of charge and equally open to all.” 2 Debates at 825. The reason 

for this rejection, however, was not based on a view that education was 

not fundamentally important, but instead to ensure that schools in Iowa 

could be racially segregated. Mr. Gillaspy, an opponent to the provision, 

declared that “[i]f the people of this state are disposed to appropriate 

money for the education of the blacks, let them do it in separate and 
110

distinct schools . . . .” Id. In response, William Penn Clark declared that 

“our duty goes for providing every child in the State with an education.” 

Id. at 826. Eventually, a substitute amendment was offered that 

provided “for the education of all the youths of the state, through a 

system of common schools.” Id. at 935. Thus, while the rejection of the 

proposed provision that schools be “free of charge and equally open to 

all” demonstrates the racial prejudices held by some members of the 

constitutional convention, it does not in any way undercut the 

importance the Iowa framers placed on accessible public education 

generally.

Article IX, division one, section fifteen provided the general 

assembly with an escape from vesting responsibility for education in the 

hands of an independent board of education. Under section fifteen, the 

general assembly was vested with the power after 1863 “to abolish or reorganize said Board of Education, and provide for the educational 

interest of the State in any other manner that to them shall seem best 

and proper.” Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, § 15. In 1864, the general 

assembly did just that. As a result, the constitutional provisions of 

article IX, division one, section one, vesting the power to provide 

education in the board of education have no current effect.

The question arises what we should make of the action of the 

general assembly abolishing the board of education. It is clear that the 

action renders inoperative the constitutional provisions vesting power 

over education with the board of education, including the provision that 

“[t]he Board of Education shall provide for the education of all the youths 

. . . through a system of Common Schools.” See id. art IX., div. 1, § 12 

(emphasis added). While the board’s constitutional duty to maintain 

common schools was clearly repealed, the duty of the state to “provide for 
111

the educational interest,” which by definition included “Common 

Schools,” was not affected. See id. art. IX, div. 1, §§ 1, 15. 

That the only effect of the legislative abolition of the board of 

education was to shift responsibilities for the provision of education as 

required by article IX is demonstrated by the case of Clark v. Board of 

Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868). Clark, which was decided four years after 

the abolition of the board, addressed the validity of racial segregation in 

Iowa public schools. Clark, 24 Iowa at 269–70. In concluding that racial 

segregation in public schools was unlawful, we cited and relied upon 

article IX, division 1, section 12, which provides that the board of 

education shall provide “ ‘for the education of all the youths of the State, 

through a system of common schools.’ ” Id. at 274 (quoting Iowa Const. 

art. IX, div. 1, § 12). Clearly, the 1864 abolition of the board of education 

did not affect the substantive requirements contained in article IX, but 

merely shifted authority by abolishing the board and creating a 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. See id.; 1864 Iowa Acts ch. 52, 

§§ 1–2, 5 (declaring that “the Board of Education of the State of Iowa is 

hereby abolished,” providing for a Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

and charging the Superintendent with the general supervision of “all the 

Common Schools of the State”); see also Hume v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 180 

Iowa 1233, 1241, 164 N.W. 188, 191 (1917) (citing but not relying on 

article IX, division 1, section 12); Burdick v. Babcock, 31 Iowa 562, 571 

(1871) (Cole, J., concurring) (stating “[o]ur constitution has clothed the 

legislature with the power, and has expressly devolved upon it the duty

of ‘providing for the education of all the youths of the State through a 

system of common schools’ ” (quoting Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, § 12)).

The ongoing obligation of the state is also reflected in the language 

of article IX, sections one and fifteen, but also demonstrated by the 
112

provisions of article IX, division two, section three, which provides for a 

“perpetual fund” that is “inviolably appropriated to the support of 

Common schools throughout the State.” Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 2, § 3. 

It would make no sense to have a “perpetual fund” that is “inviolably

appropriated to the support of Common schools throughout the State” if 

the state, in its discretion, could abolish common schools. See id. 

(emphasis added).

Thus, the Iowa Constitution requires a system of common schools 

to educate all youths throughout the state, but in terms of the 

management of such common schools, it allows the general assembly to 

“provide for the educational interest of the State” in a manner other than 

through the board of education. See id. art. IX, div. 1, § 15. After 1863, 

the legislature was free to choose to manage its common schools through 

a superintendent of public instruction, a department of education, a 

committee of scholars, or in “any other manner that to them shall seem 

best and proper.” See id.

The explicit Iowa constitutional provisions related to “provid[ing] 

for the education of all the youths of the State, through a system of 

Common Schools” and advancing “the educational interest of the State, 

including Common Schools,” stand in stark contrast to the complete lack 

of explicit provisions in the United States Constitution related to 

education and reflect the fundamentally different traditional roles of state 

and federal governments when it comes to the education of children and 

youth. The Federal Constitution is generally a limited constitution with 

the federal government only granted powers specifically authorized. In 

contrast, the states have plenary legislative authority and have positive 

commitments in the constitutional frameworks. In Iowa, one of the 

positive commitments in the Iowa Constitution is to the educational 
113

mission. Scholars have suggested that the positive rights tradition of 

state constitutions differs markedly from the negative rights tradition of 

federal constitutional analysis. See Helen Hershkoff, Positive Rights and 

State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review, 112 Harv. L. 

Rev. 1131, 1134–37 (1999) [hereinafter Hershkoff]. While the 

enforcement of negative rights contained in the United States 

Constitution generally has not required affirmative action by government, 

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199, 

109 S. Ct. 998, 1006, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249, 261 (1989), quite the opposite 

is true with respect to positive obligations of state governments that, by 

definition, require the state to take affirmative action to meet its 

constitutional responsibilities.

B. Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Iowa Constitution. 

The Iowa Constitution has a privileges and immunities clause. The 

provision is found in article I, section 6. This section provides:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform 

operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any 

citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, 

upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Iowa Const. art. I, § 6. The Iowa privileges and immunities clause 

predates the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection 

Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There has been much written about the relationship between state 

privileges and immunities clauses and the Federal Equal Protection 

Clause.36 While the privileges and immunities clauses have generally not 

 36See, e.g., David Schuman, The Right to “Equal Privileges and Immunities”: A 

State’s Version of “Equal Protection,” 13 Vt. L. Rev. 221 (1988) [hereinafter Schuman]; 

Jeffrey M. Shaman, The Evolution of Equality in State Constitutional Law, 34 Rutgers 

L.J. 1013 (2003) [hereinafter Shaman]; Jonathan Thompson, The Washington 

Constitution’s Prohibition on Special Privileges and Immunities: Real Bite for “Equal 

Protection” Review of Regulatory Legislation?, 69 Temp. L. Rev. 1247 (1996); Robert F. 
114

been construed narrowly, there is the notion that privileges and 

immunities clauses were designed, in part, to prevent narrow classes of 

people from getting special advantages from government, what might be 

in today’s popular parlance be called crony capitalism. 

To Iowa’s first Territorial Governor Robert Lucas, however, the 

privileges and immunities clause of the Northwest Ordinance was linked 

to the right of citizens to obtain an education. In his first inaugural 

speech, Lucas juxtaposed the privileges and immunities clause with his 

comments upon the need to develop education in the territory. 1 

Shambaugh at 78. Lucas saw the right to education as among the 

“privileges” of citizens of the Iowa territory.

In the nineteenth century, the United States Supreme Court was 

inhospitable to claims brought under the Privileges and Immunities 

Clause and the related Equal Protection Clause in the Federal 

Constitution. In The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 

L. Ed. 394 (1872), the Court gave the Federal Privileges and Immunities 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment an extraordinarily narrow 

interpretation. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 

L. Ed. 256 (1896), the United States Supreme Court announced the 

separate but equal doctrine, which stood as law for over fifty years until 

it was finally overturned in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 

74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). While the United States Supreme 

Court was minimizing the Federal Privileges and Immunities Clause and 

narrowly interpreting equal protection, however, the Iowa Supreme Court 

was breathing life and meaning into state constitutional provisions 

related to equality. 

_______________________________

Williams, Foreword: The Importance of an Independent State Constitutional Equality 

Doctrine in School Finance Cases and Beyond, 24 Conn. L. Rev. 675 (1992).
115

The dramatic story begins prior to statehood. In its first reported 

case, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), the Supreme Court of the 

Territory of Iowa held that a slave who was voluntarily permitted to leave 

Missouri and travel to Iowa was a free man as the law should “extend 

equal protection to men of all colors and conditions.” In re Ralph, 1 

Morris at 6. This holding, of course, was the precise opposite of the 

approach taken by the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. 

Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), twenty years 

later.

After statehood, the tradition of In re Ralph was extended in Clark. 

As discussed above, Clark held that a person cannot be denied 

admission to a public school on account of race. Clark, 24 Iowa at 274. 

Although Clark was based on statutory grounds, the decision included 

sweeping language with constitutional overtones. Id. at 277. In Coger v. 

Northwestern Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145, 153–55 (1873), this court, 

relying upon article I, section 1 of the Iowa Constitution, refused to 

endorse the separate but equal doctrine and instead held that persons of 

color were entitled to be admitted as a steamboat passenger on equal 

terms to white patrons. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 1 (1857) (“All men are, 

by nature, free and equal”).

Since the very beginning, we have interpreted Iowa’s privileges and 

immunities clause in a fashion dramatically different than the 

interpretation offered by the United States Supreme Court in The 

Slaughter-House Cases. In more recent years, we have often looked to 

federal equal protection precedent for its persuasive power in interpreting 

our privileges and immunities provision. Callender v. Skiles, 591 N.W.2d 

182, 187 (Iowa 1999). We have, however, jealously guarded our right to 

engage in analysis under the Iowa Constitution that is independent from 
116

the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court under the 

Federal Equal Protection Clause. Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Huff, 256 N.W.2d 

17, 23 (Iowa 1977); Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce 

Comm’n, 190 N.W.2d 583, 593 (Iowa 1971), superseded by statute, Iowa 

Code § 17A.19(7) (1975), as recognized in Interstate Power Co. v. Iowa 

State Commerce Comm’n, 463 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 1990). On a 

number of occasions, we have departed from directly applicable federal 

precedent and engaged in independent analysis. See, e.g., Racing Ass’n 

of Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI), 675 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2004); Bierkamp 

v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 581–82 (Iowa 1980). When federal precedent 

was lacking, we have relied on state constitutional grounds to decide 

important issues. See Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 906 (Iowa 

2009).

Our independent role in our application of equal protection 

concepts pursuant to the privileges and immunities clause of the Iowa 

Constitution is a firmly established feature of our legal tradition from the 

very first days of statehood, is consistent with the evolving law in other 

states, and is part of a celebrated tradition in Iowa.

C. Substantive Due Process of the Iowa Constitution. The 

plaintiffs make a substantive due process claim under article I, section 9 

of the Iowa Constitution. Article I, section 9 states, in relevant part, that 

“no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due 

process of law.” Iowa Const. art. I, § 9.

The Iowa constitutional provision is parallel to a similar provision 

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution. As with other state constitutional provisions, we zealously 

guard our ability to interpret the Iowa Constitution differently than the 

interpretations of the United States Supreme Court under the federal due 
117

process provision. State v. Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d 700, 704 n.1 (Iowa 

2008).

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 403, 43 S. Ct. 625, 628, 67 

L. Ed. 1042, 1046–47 (1923), the United States Supreme Court 

overturned a conviction of a school teacher who taught foreign languages 

in public schools. In passing, the Court identified the right to acquire 

useful knowledge as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399–400, 43 S. Ct. at 626–27, 67 L. Ed. 

at 1045. While not overruled, the outcome in Meyer was based on due 

process methodology of the Lochner era and may not be reliable 

precedent.

The United States Supreme Court, however, has employed 

substantive due process in a number of contexts in more recent years 

that may be instructive in the present case. For instance, in Youngberg 

v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324, 102 S. Ct. 2452, 2462, 73 L. Ed. 2d 28, 42–

43 (1982), the Supreme Court declared that persons subject to civil 

commitment “enjoy[] constitutionally protected interests in conditions of 

reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement 

conditions, and such training as may be required by those interests.” 

Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738, 92 

S. Ct. 1845, 1858, 32 L. Ed. 2d 435, 450–51 (1972), suggested that due 

process requires that the nature and duration of commitment must have 

a reasonable relationship to the reasons for commitment.

A case of potential significance is Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 

(5th Cir. 1974). Aderholt involved a class action alleging that a state 

school designed to habilitate the mentally handicapped was not providing 

meaningful care. Aderholt, 503 F.2d at 1306. Judge Wisdom 

characterized the issue as whether “federal district courts have the power 
118

to order state mental institutions to provide minimum levels of 

psychiatric care and treatment to persons civilly committed to the 

institutions.” Id. The Aderholt court unanimously decided the question 

in the affirmative. Id. at 1319. It rejected the claims of Governor George 

Wallace that providing adequate treatment for persons civilly confined 

was a question of available funds. Id. at 1317–19.

In light of these analogies, it can be asserted that, because 

education is compulsory, it involves liberty and its deprivation triggers a 

due process right that the infringement of liberty be reasonably related to 

the intended purpose, namely, education. See Bitensky, 86 Nw. U. L. 

Rev. at 596 n.277; Gershon M. Ratner, A New Legal Duty For Urban 

Public Schools: Effective Education in Basic Skills, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 777, 

823–28 (1985) [hereinafter Ratner]; Note, A Right to Learn? Improving 

Educational Outcomes Through Substantive Due Process, 120 Harv. L. 

Rev. 1323, 1328–32 (2007).

Our prior precedents recognize a due process interest in adequate 

education. In Exira Community School District v. State, 512 N.W.2d 787, 

796 (Iowa 1994), we noted that a student has a due process right to an 

“adequate education.” Thus, a finding in this case that there is a due 

process right under the Iowa Constitution would not be breaking new 

theoretical ground, but simply applying the tools present in existing 

precedent.

V. Overview of Education Cases.

A. Introduction. In this section, I provide an overview of two 

important cases related to education, Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 

(Cal. 1971) (Serrano I), and San Antonio Independent School District v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973). These 
119

cases set the stage for a more detailed analysis of the rich sources of 

state constitutional law regarding educational issues.

The survey will show that, even if this court were to apply the 

San Antonio framework for determining whether an interest is 

“fundamental” for equal protection purposes, such a fundamental 

interest would be present in light of the explicit Iowa constitutional 

provisions related to education. Further, the survey will show that, while 

the cases are divided, many state supreme courts have found a 

fundamental interest in education because of the strong historical role of 

state government in providing education to children and because of the 

critical functional role of education in a democratic government.

B. The California State Supreme Court Decision in Serrano I.

1. Introduction. The first major case to consider a challenge to a 

state system of education on equal protection grounds was Serrano I. In 

Serrano I, school children and their parents challenged the 

constitutionality of public school financing in the State of California. 

Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 1244. The plaintiffs claimed that reliance on 

property taxes to fund public schools caused substantial disparities in 

the quality and nature of educational opportunities available to them. Id. 

The district court granted the defendants’ demurrer (motion to dismiss) 

and the plaintiffs appealed. Id. at 1245.

2. California’s education clause. The Serrano I court rejected the 

claim that California’s funding of public schools violated the education 

clause of the California Constitution. Id. at 1249; see Cal. Const. art. IX, 

§ 5. The court held that while California was required to maintain a 

“system” of common schools, a “system” of common schools meant only a 

prescribed course of study and educational progression from grade to 

grade. Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 1248–49. The Serrano I court reasoned 
120

that the education clause, standing alone, did not require equality of 

spending. Id.

3. Equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The 

Serrano I court next turned to the claim that California’s education 

system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution. Citing the poll tax case of 

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S. Ct. 1079, 

16 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1966), the court concluded that the reliance on 

property taxes that produced financial disparities available to school 

districts amounted to a classification based upon wealth of the district. 

Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 1250. The court rejected the state’s argument that 

because the discrimination was based on district wealth, no equal 

protection claim could be brought. Id. at 1251–52. The court further 

concluded that when a classification was based on wealth, no allegation 

of purposeful or intentional discrimination was required. Id. at 1253–55. 

The court noted that in Harper, the poll tax was neutral on its face but 

was clearly discriminatory in effect. Id. at 1254. The court further noted 

that while the United States Supreme Court had not yet weighed in on 

the issue, the California Supreme Court had previously held that de facto 

racial segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1255 

(citing S.F. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Johnson, 479 P.2d 669 (Cal. 1971), and 

Jackson v. Pasadena City Sch. Dist., 382 P.2d 878 (Cal. 1963)).

The Serrano I court also addressed the question of whether the 

asserted educational interest of the plaintiffs amounted to a fundamental 

interest for purposes of equal protection analysis. Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 

1255–59. The court noted that education plays an indispensible role in 

modern industrial society in two respects. Education, according to the 

court, “is a major determinant of an individual’s chances for economic 
121

and social success.” Id. at 1255–56. Second, education has “a unique 

influence on a child’s development as a citizen and his participation in 

political and community life.” Id. at 1256. The court compared 

education with other fundamental rights such as the right to have a free 

transcript or a court appointed lawyer. Id. at 1257–58. The court 

concluded that education compared favorably in importance. Id. 

According to the court, education, aside from reducing the crime rate, 

supports “each and every other value of a democratic society—

participation, communication, and social mobility, to name but a few.” 

Id. at 1258 (citing the seminal work of John E. Coons, William H. Clune 

III & Stephen D. Sugarman, Educational Opportunity: A Workable 

Constitutional Test for State Financial Structures, 57 Cal. L. Rev. 305 

(1969)).

Having determined that the financing scheme in California 

discriminated against school districts on the basis of wealth and affected 

fundamental interests, the Serrano I court proceeded to apply a 

compelling state interest standard to determine its validity. Serrano I, 

487 P.2d at 1259–63. Not surprisingly, the court found the scheme 

invalid under the demanding test. Id. at 1263. The court rejected the 

asserted state interest of local control, noting that local control could be 

preserved regardless of the method of financing public education. Id. at 

1260. With respect to the claim that the system encouraged 

decentralized decision making at the local level, the court found that 

“such fiscal freewill is a cruel illusion for the poor school districts.” Id. 

According to the court, 

so long as the assessed valuation within a district’s 

boundaries is a major determinant of how much it can spend 

for its schools, only a district with a large tax base will be 

truly able to decide how much it really cares about 

education. 
122

Id. A poor district, according to the court, cannot tax itself into an 

excellence that its tax rolls cannot provide. Id.

4. Privileges and immunities and uniformity clauses of the 

California Constitution. While the Serrano I court focused primarily on 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, footnote 

eleven of the opinion indicated that a violation of the California 

Constitution article I, sections 11 and 21 were also present. Id. at 1249 

n.11. Section 11 provided that “ ‘[a]ll laws of a general nature shall have 

a uniform operation,’ ” while section 21 provided that “ ‘[n]o special 

privileges or immunities shall ever be granted . . . nor shall any citizen, 

or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the 

same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.’ ” Id. (quoting article I, 

sections 11 and 21 of the California Constitution). The Serrano I court 

observed in the footnote that ordinarily the court construed these state 

provisions as “ ‘substantially the equivalent’ of the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. (quoting Dep’t of Mental 

Hygiene v. Kirchner, 400 P.2d 321, 322 (Cal. 1965)).

5. Summary. As a result, the Serrano I court reversed the 

dismissal of the action by the trial court primarily on federal 

constitutional grounds. On remand, the court stated that the district 

court should engage in further proceedings, and if it entered judgment 

against the defendants, it could do so “in such a way as to permit an 

orderly transition from an unconstitutional to a constitutional system of 

school financing.” Id. at 1266. 

C. Federal Developments: San Antonio. 

1. Introduction. The United States Supreme Court took up the 

issue of disparities of education in San Antonio. In this case, school 

children and their parents brought a class action on behalf of all children 
123

who live in school districts with low property valuations attacking the 

Texas method of financing public education. Rodriguez v. San Antonio 

Indep. Sch. Dist., 337 F. Supp. 280, 281 (W.D. Tex. 1971).

After a trial in which testimony and documentary evidence was 

presented, a three judge panel of district court judges, relying in part on 

Serrano I, concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the Texas 

scheme of financing public education violated the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Noting that wealthy school 

districts had more educational options than poorer ones, the district 

court concluded that “the quality of public education may not be a 

function of wealth, other than the wealth of the state as a whole.” Id. at 

284. By a narrow 5–4 margin, the United States Supreme Court reversed 

the district court. San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 6, 93 S. Ct. at 1282, 36 

L. Ed. 2d at 27. 

2. Focus of San Antonio: Does strict scrutiny apply to parity claims 

under the Equal Protection Clause? In an opinion by Justice Powell, the 

San Antonio majority first concluded that the plaintiffs failed to make a 

showing of wealth discrimination sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny. Id.

at 22–23, 93 S. Ct. at 1291, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 36–37. The San Antonio

majority concluded that the class of persons in the school districts 

attended by plaintiffs was ill defined. Id. Although the school districts 

generally had less wealth, students within the school districts were not 

uniformly poor. Id. According to the San Antonio majority, there was no 

basis in the record to conclude that the poorest people were concentrated 

in the poorest districts. Id. at 23, 93 S. Ct. at 1291, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 37 

(emphasis added). As a result, the class of plaintiffs was not sufficiently 

related to wealth to trigger strict scrutiny. 
124

In reaching its conclusion, the San Antonio majority noted that no 

claim had been made that the plaintiffs suffered “an absolute deprivation 

of the desired benefit.” Id. The San Antonio majority emphasized that 

“the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or 

precisely equal advantages.” Id. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 1291, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 

37. The San Antonio majority further observed that Texas authorities 

asserted the plaintiffs were receiving an “adequate” education and that 

“[n]o proof was offered at trial persuasively discrediting or refuting the 

State’s assertion.”37 Id. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 1292, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 38. 

In contrast to the California Supreme Court in Serrano I, the San 

Antonio majority also determined that while education was an important 

interest, it did not amount to a fundamental interest under the Federal 

Constitution. Citing Brown, the San Antonio majority recognized “the 

vital role of education in a free society.” Id. at 30, 93 S. Ct. at 1295, 36 

L. Ed. 2d at 41. Yet, the Court noted the power of the dissent in Shapiro 

v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969), in 

which Justice Harlan cautioned that fundamental rights doctrine should 

not extend to “ ‘[v]irtually every state statute’ ” that affects important 

rights. Id. at 31, 93 S. Ct. at 1295, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 41 (quoting Shapiro, 

394 U.S. at 661, 89 S. Ct. at 1345, 22 L. Ed. 2d at 631 (Harlan, J., 

dissenting), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 

U.S. 651, 671, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1359–60, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662, 677 (1974)).

 37In Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2944, 92 L. Ed. 2d 

209, 232 (1986), Justice White noted that the issue of whether there was a fundamental 

right to a minimally adequate education was not definitively resolved in San Antonio. 

See also Preston C. Green & Bruce D. Baker, Circumventing Rodriguez: Can Plaintiffs 

Use the Equal Protection Clause to Challenge School Finance Disparities Caused by 

Inequitable State Distribution Policies?, 7 Tex. F. on C.L. & C.R. 141, 150 (2002) (noting 

unresolved question of federal law).
125

In order to cabin the fundamental rights doctrine, the San Antonio

majority held that a fundamental right under the Federal Equal 

Protection Clause is one that is explicitly or implicitly afforded protection 

in the United States Constitution. Id. at 33, 93 S. Ct. at 1297, 36 

L. Ed. 2d at 43. Fundamental rights under the Federal Constitution thus 

do not arise from an “ad hoc determination as to the social or economic 

importance of that right.” Id. at 32, 93 S. Ct. at 1296, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 42.

The San Antonio majority’s test of what amounts to a fundamental 

interest is noteworthy because it highlights the difference between 

Federal and State Constitutions. Under the test of the San Antonio

majority, it is clear that education is not a fundamental interest under 

the Federal Constitution because nowhere is education explicitly or 

implicitly mentioned in the text. The opposite, of course, is true of state 

constitutions, which routinely contain explicit constitutional provisions 

relating to education that invariably include a duty to provide education 

to its citizens. A state court desiring to follow the San Antonio

formulation for determining whether an interest is fundamental would be 

compelled to find such an interest in light of the prominent and explicit 

role of education in the state constitution.

As in its discussion regarding the question of whether the plaintiffs 

demonstrated discrimination on the basis of wealth, the San Antonio

majority emphasized in its discussion of fundamental interests that 

“[e]ven if it were conceded that some identifiable quantum of education is 

a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of 

either right” there was no indication in the record that the present level 

of expenditures in the schools which the plaintiffs attended fell short. Id.

at 36–37, 93 S. Ct. at 1298–99, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 45. The San Antonio

majority noted that “no charge fairly could be made that the system fails 
126

to provide each child with an opportunity to acquire the basic minimum 

skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and of full 

participation in the political process.” Id. at 37, 93 S. Ct. at 1299, 36 

L. Ed. 2d at 45. 

3. Impact of federalism and deference to states. The San Antonio

majority noted that “a century of Supreme Court adjudication under the 

Equal Protection Clause affirmatively supports” the application of a 

rational basis test to the Texas educational finance structure. Id. at 40, 

93 S. Ct. at 1300, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 47. The San Antonio majority stressed 

that the field of taxation had been a traditional area of deference. Id. 

Further, the San Antonio majority recognized that the field of education 

involved a number of complex issues that ordinarily should be left to the 

legislative process. Id. at 42–43, 93 S. Ct. at 1301–02, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 

48–49.

Any Supreme Court review of legislation involves deference issues, 

and many constitutional questions before the Court can be quite 

complex. What made the case especially troubling to the San Antonio

majority was the strong federalism concerns underlying its conclusion 

that strict scrutiny of state school finance laws was inappropriate. The 

San Antonio majority noted the implications of the case for the 

relationship between national and state power under the federal system. 

Id. at 44, 93 S. Ct. at 1302, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 49. The San Antonio majority 

declared “it would be difficult to imagine” a case with greater impact on 

the federal system than the case before the Court in which the Court is 

urged to “abrogate systems of financing public education presently in 

existence in virtually every State.” Id.

4. Application of rational basis test. After determining that the 

proper standard of review was the traditional rational basis standard, the 
127

San Antonio majority proceeded to consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ 

claim. The three judge district court had concluded based on a 

substantial record that the Texas system failed even “to establish a 

reasonable basis” for a system that results in different levels of per pupil 

expenditure. Rodriguez, 337 F. Supp. at 284. 

The San Antonio majority disagreed with the district court, 

concluding that local control provided a sufficient rational basis for the 

funding scheme. The San Antonio majority emphasized that the Texas 

system of school finance assured “a basic education” for every child in 

the state. San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 49, 93 S. Ct. at 1305, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 

52. Local control, according to the San Antonio majority, is vital to 

continued public support for education, and it means the freedom to 

devote more funds to education through local taxes. Id. at 49–50, 93 

S. Ct. at 1305, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 52. The San Antonio majority noted that 

while poor school districts had reduced ability to make free decisions 

regarding how much they spend on education, they still “retain under 

the present system a large measure of authority as to how available 

funds will be allocated.” Id. at 51, 93 S. Ct. at 1306, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 53. 

The state’s interest in maintenance of local control in education thus 

satisfied the rational basis test under the Federal Equal Protection 

Clause.

5. Dissents. The majority opinion in San Antonio drew dissents 

from Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall. Justice Brennan 

challenged the holding of the majority that education did not amount to 

a fundamental interest. He noted that education was inextricably linked 

to constitutional rights of voting and free speech and that, as a result, 

education amounted to a fundamental interest for purposes of equal 
128

protection. Id. at 62–63, 93 S. Ct. at 1312, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 60 (Brennan, 

J., dissenting). 

Justice White attacked the majority’s conclusion that local control 

justified the Texas finance scheme. Id. at 64–65, 93 S. Ct. at 1312–13, 

36 L. Ed. 2d at 61–62 (White, J., dissenting). He asserted that while 

local control might be a valid state interest, the means chosen by Texas 

did not advance it. Specifically, Justice White noted that districts with a 

low tax base did not have an effective local option choice of increasing 

funds available for education. Id. He further concluded that a class was 

obviously present for equal protection purposes, namely, the persons 

who find themselves in a low property value school district. Id. at 69, 93 

S. Ct. at 1315, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 64. 

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Douglas, provided the 

lengthiest dissent. He found it an inescapable fact that if one school 

district has more funds available per pupil than another, the former will 

have a greater choice in educational planning than the latter. Id. at 83–

84, 93 S. Ct. at 1322, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 72 (Marshall, J., dissenting). He 

attacked the majority’s notion that Texas provided an “adequate” 

education, noting that the Court had never before suggested that 

because some “adequate” level of benefits is provided to all, 

discrimination in the provision of services is acceptable. Id. at 88–89, 93 

S. Ct. at 1325, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 74–75. He rejected the rigidified tiered 

approach to equal protection, calling instead for the adoption of a more 

flexible test that balanced the interests of the party challenging the 

classification against the state’s purported interest in sustaining the 

statute. Id. at 98–110, 93 S. Ct. at 1330–36, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 81–88. In 

any event, Justice Marshall concluded that education certainly was a 

“fundamental” interest in light of its unique status in society and its 
129

nexus with other protected constitutional rights. Id. at 111, 93 S. Ct. at 

1336–37, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 88. 

6. Summary. The San Antonio majority rejected a federal equal 

protection claim when the plaintiff sought parity in educational 

expenditures. The San Antonio majority was particularly concerned that 

if strict scrutiny would apply to such sweeping claims, thousands of 

state statutes would be invalidated. The Court expressly reserved the 

question, however, of whether strict scrutiny would apply where a state 

deprived children of an adequate education. 

Further, the San Antonio Court adopted a standard for determining 

whether an asserted interest or right is fundamental. While not binding 

on a state court, the methodology, if followed, would lead to the 

conclusion that education, which is the subject of explicit state 

constitutional provisions, is a fundamental interest for equal protection 

purposes.

D. The California State Court Response: Serrano II. After 

San Antonio, the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 557 P.2d 

929 (Cal. 1976) (Serrano II), was asked to reconsider its decision that the 

California system of financing education was constitutionally infirm. 

During the trial proceedings resulting from Serrano I, San Antonio was 

decided. The trial court, however, concluded that the financing scheme 

violated the privileges and immunities and uniform laws clauses of the 

California Constitution. Serrano II, 557 P.2d at 931. The defendants 

appealed. Id.

In Serrano II, the California Supreme Court declined to follow 

San Antonio in its interpretation of the state constitution. Id. at 951. 

The Serrano II court emphasized that while the state equal protection 

provisions were “substantially the equivalent” of the guarantees of the 
130

Fourteenth Amendment, they possessed “an independent vitality which, 

in a given case, may demand an analysis different from that which would 

obtain if only the federal standard were applicable.” Id. at 950. The 

Serrano II court noted that considerations of federalism, which played an 

important part in San Antonio, had no application to the judgment of a 

state supreme court. Id. at 948–49. Further, while the Serrano II court 

did not claim expertise on school financing, it noted it had the benefit of 

4000 pages of testimonial transcript, replete with the opinions of experts, 

and exhaustive findings of the district court. Id. at 952. In determining 

whether a right is “fundamental” for purposes of the California equal 

protection clause, the Serrano II court rejected the San Antonio test. Id. 

Instead, the Serrano II court declared that it would determine which 

legislative classifications were subject to strict scrutiny based upon the 

impact on those rights and liberties which “lie at the core of our free and 

representative form of government.” Id. 

E. Subsequent Education Cases Based on State Constitutions.

1. Overview of state court cases subsequent to San Antonio. After 

Serrano I, San Antonio, and Serrano II, a significant number of states 

considered challenges to state schemes of providing education. Plaintiffs 

challenging state educational frameworks in state courts generally 

launched double-barreled attacks.38 First, plaintiffs claimed that the 

 38See, e.g., Op. of the Justices, 624 So. 2d 107, 112 (Ala. 1993); Roosevelt 

Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806, 811–12 (Ariz. 1994); DuPree v. 

Alma Sch. Dist. No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90, 91 (Ark. 1983); Lujan v. Colo. State Bd. of Educ., 

649 P.2d 1005, 1010–11 (Colo. 1982); Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359, 361 (Conn. 

1977); McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 156, 157 (Ga. 1981); Thompson v. Engelking, 

537 P.2d 635, 636 (Idaho 1975); Comm. for Educ. Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178, 

1182 (Ill. 1996); Unified Sch. Dist. No. 229 v. State, 885 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Kan. 1994); 

Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 190 (Ky. 1989); Hornbeck v. 

Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 458 A.2d 758, 764 (Md. 1983); McDuffy, 615 N.E.2d at 

522; Helena Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 769 P.2d 684, 685 (Mont. 1989); 

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 655 N.E.2d 661, 663 (N.Y. 1995); Leandro v. 

State, 488 S.E.2d 249, 252 (N.C. 1997); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 42 
131

educational structures violated the state education clauses in the state 

constitutions. Second, the plaintiffs asserted that the state education 

schemes violated equal protection under the state constitutions. These 

theories, while pled separately, often operated in tandem with one 

another. In a few states, plaintiffs have also included challenges to 

educational structures based on substantive due process.39

While the cases often turn upon the specific language of statutes 

and the nature of the factual records that are developed, the post-San 

Antonio state supreme court cases in which plaintiffs challenging state 

educational frameworks prevail are in the majority,40 while those denying 

relief constitute a substantial minority.41 Interestingly, the jurisdictions 

where state supreme courts have departed from San Antonio include 

Texas, where the state supreme court invalidated the same school 

_______________________________

(R.I. 1995); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 538 (S.C. 1999); Tenn. 

Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tenn. 1993); Edgewood Indep. Sch. 

Dist. v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex. 1989); Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 384, 385 

(Vt. 1997); Scott v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 138, 140 (Va. 1994); Pauley, 255 S.E.2d 

at 861; Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568, 570 (Wis. 1989).

39Ala. Coal. for Equity, Inc. v. Hunt, CV-90-883-R, CV-91-0117, 1993 WL 204083 

(Ala. Cir. Ct. April 1, 1993).

40See Bishop, 877 P.2d at 816; DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93; Horton, 376 A.2d at 

374–75; Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 189; McDuffy, 615 N.E.2d at 555–56; Helena Elementary

Sch. Dist. No. 1, 769 P.2d at 685; Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor, 635 A.2d 1375, 1376 

(N.H. 1993); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., 655 N.E.2d at 663; Leandro, 488 S.E.2d at 

255; Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist., 515 S.E.2d at 538; Tenn. Small Sch. Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 

141; Kirby, 777 S.W.2d at 392; Brigham, 692 A.2d at 385; Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. 

State, 585 P.2d 71, 92 (Wash. 1978); Pauley, 255 S.E.2d at 878; Washakie Cnty. Sch. 

Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310, 337 (Wyo. 1980).

41See Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 394 (Alaska 

1997); Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1010–11; Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. 

v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 402 (Fla. 1996), superseded by amendment, Florida Const. 

art. IX, § 1 (1998 amend.), as recognized in Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006); 

McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 168; Comm. for Educ. Rights, 672 N.E.2d at 1180–81; Montoy v. 

State, 120 P.3d 306, 308 (Kan. 2005); Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 1 v. Comm’r, 659 A.2d 854, 

855 (Me. 1995); Hornbeck, 458 A.2d at 790; Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 320 (Minn. 

1993); Neb. Coal. for Educ. Equity & Adequacy v. Heineman, 731 N.W.2d 164, 169 (Neb. 

2007); Okla. Educ. Ass’n v. State ex rel. Okla. Legislature, 158 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Okla. 

2007); Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 42. 
132

financing arrangements that the United States Supreme Court approved 

in San Antonio. See Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 

391, 392 (Tex. 1989). In the minority of cases lost by plaintiffs, some 

may be characterized as providing mixed results, such as where the 

courts recognized or at least reserved the possibility of a successful claim 

but found the facts insufficient to support them.42 Many of the cases 

also triggered strong dissents.43

Many of the decisions are also based upon extensive records 

developed by trial courts.44 In some cases where the trial courts 

dismissed education claims without developing an evidentiary record, 

reversal has occurred. See, e.g., Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. 

Evans, 850 P.2d 734−35 (Idaho 1993).

2. Obstacles to judicial review: Political question and justiciability 

doctrines. The post-San Antonio state court cases have considered a 

 42Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist., 931 P.2d at 399–401 (holding equal 

protection claim challenging school finance was subject to sliding scale scrutiny under 

state equal protection clause, but no evidence presented to show that plaintiffs were 

disparately affected by finance system); Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 659 A.2d at 857 n.5 

(stating allegations did not claim education fell beneath the basic minimum skills 

necessary for the enjoyment of rights of speech and full participation in the political 

process); Skeen, 505 N.W.2d at 302–03 (noting the plaintiffs conceded that they 

received an adequate education, therefore satisfying the fundamental right to a general 

and adequate education); Scott, 443 S.E.2d at 142 (holding education is a fundamental 

right, but finding no violation on the facts); Kukor, 436 N.W.2d at 579 (finding equal 

opportunity in education is a fundamental right, but no violation on facts).

43See, e.g., Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness, 680 So. 2d at 410–11 (Anstead, J., 

dissenting in part); Montoy, 120 P.3d at 311–18 (Beier, J., concurring); Lujan, 649 P.2d 

at 1028–32 (Dubofsky, J., dissenting); Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1032–48 (Lohr, J., dissenting); 

Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 220–29 (Vance, J., dissenting); Hornbeck, 458 A.2d at 791–805 

(Cole, J., dissenting); McDuffy, 615 N.E.2d at 556–57 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part 

& dissenting in part); Kukor, 436 N.W.2d at 587–94 (Bablitch, J., dissenting).

44See, e.g., Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 91 S.W.3d 472, 479 (Ark. 

2002) (noting the trial involved nineteen days, thirty-six witnesses, and 187 exhibits); 

DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 95 (noting trial with thirty-nine witnesses, 287 exhibits, and 

7400 pages of testimony); Horton, 376 A.2d at 361 (citing “thorough and exhaustive 

record submitted by the trial court”).
133

number of obstacles to judicial review. The main obstacles are the 

political question doctrine and the related doctrine of justiciability.

With respect to the political question doctrine, state courts 

receptive to education claims have generally found that courts have a 

duty to decide cases brought before them by the parties. The duty of 

courts to declare what the law is has sometimes been expressed in 

forceful terms. For example, the Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose 

declared that “[t]o avoid deciding the case because of ‘legislative 

discretion’ . . . would be a denigration of our own constitutional duty. To 

allow the General Assembly . . . to decide whether its actions are 

constitutional is literally unthinkable.” Rose v. Council for Better Educ., 

Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 209 (Ky. 1989). Similarly, in DeRolph v. State, the 

Ohio Supreme Court declared:

We will not dodge our responsibility by asserting that this 

case involves a nonjusticiable political question. To do so is 

unthinkable. We refuse to undermine our role as judicial 

arbiters and to pass our responsibilities onto the lap of the 

General Assembly.

677 N.E.2d 733, 737 (Ohio 1997); see also Conn. Coal. for Justice in 

Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 990 A.2d 206, 223 (Conn. 2010) (noting “ ‘it is 

well within the province of the judiciary to determine whether a 

coordinate branch of government has conducted itself’ in accordance 

with ‘the authority conferred upon it by the constitution’ ” (quoting Office 

of the Governor v. Select Comm. of Inquiry, 858 A.2d 709, 730 (Conn. 

2004))); Evans, 850 P.2d at 734 (“[W]e decline to accept the respondents’ 

argument that the other branches of government be allowed to interpret 

the constitution for us. That would be an abject abdication of our role in 

the American system of government.”); McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 

156, 157 (Ga. 1981) (noting court was not called to decide which policy 
134

was “better,” but only if existing method of financing public education 

met state constitutional requirements); Columbia Falls Elementary Sch. 

Dist. No. 6 v. State, 109 P.3d 257, 261 (Mont. 2005) (“As the final 

guardian and protector of the right to education, it is incumbent upon 

the court to assure that the system enacted by the Legislature enforces, 

protects and fulfills the right.”); Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249, 253 

(N.C. 1997) (“When a government action is challenged as 

unconstitutional, the courts have a duty to determine whether that 

action exceeds constitutional limits.”). A minority of state courts, 

however, view education clause and equal protection clause challenges 

as raising political questions.45

3. Analysis of education clauses in state constitutions. As 

indicated above, nearly all of the state constitutions contain provisions 

related to education. The clauses come in a number of shapes and sizes 

that have been categorized by commentators. Some of the clauses are 

characterized as “weak,” while others are thought to be more robust.46

A significant number of constitutions that require the legislature to 

provide for a “thorough and efficient,” “liberal,” “general and uniform,” 

“general, suitable, and efficient,” “a system of free common schools,” or 

an “efficient” system of schools, have been held to provide the basis for a 

judicially enforceable mandatory obligation to provide children with a 

certain level or quality of education.47 One court, however, has found 

 45See, e.g., Ex parte James, 836 So. 2d 813, 819 (Ala. 2002); Comm. for Educ. 

Rights, 672 N.E.2d at 1193; Neb. Coal. for Educ. Equity & Adequacy, 731 N.W.2d at 183;

Okla. Educ. Ass’n, 158 P.3d at 1066; Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 62.

46See Ratner, 63 Tex. L. Rev. at 814–16 (placing Iowa’s constitutional provisions 

in a third category containing “a stronger and more specific education mandate” than in 

the first two groups, but less strong than a fourth group).

47See Op. of the Justices, 624 So. 2d at 110–11 (“liberal”); Lake View, 91 S.W.3d 

at 495 (“general, suitable, and efficient”); Bishop, 877 P.2d at 808 (“general and 

uniform”); Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 212–13 (“efficient”); Hornbeck, 458 A.2d at 780 
135

that a requirement that “there shall always be free public elementary and 

secondary schools” is sufficient to establish a minimum qualitative 

requirement. See Rell, 990 A.2d at 227, 281–82.

On the other hand, there are cases declining to find an enforceable 

mandatory duty to provide an adequate education based on 

constitutional provisions that provide for “a system of common 

schools,”48 a requirement that schools be “thorough and uniform,”49 a 

requirement to make “adequate provision . . . for a uniform system of free 

public schools,”50 a provision establishing a “a primary obligation” for 

“the provision of an adequate education,”51 a provision requiring the 

state to “establish and maintain a . . . thorough system of public, free 

common schools,”52 and a provision requiring a “general and uniform 

system of Common Schools.”53

4. Overview of state education cases considering challenges based 

on substantive due process. At least one court has considered challenges 

to state educational frameworks based on substantive due process under 

state constitutions. In Alabama, for instance, the Alabama Supreme 

Court has adopted a more rigorous standard of substantive due process 

than employed by the United States Supreme Court. See Mount Royal 

Towers, Inc. v. Ala. State Bd. of Health, 388 So. 2d 1209, 1213–15 (Ala. 

1980). In the lower court opinion attached as an appendix in Opinion of 

_______________________________ (“thorough and efficient”); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 655 N.E.2d at 665 (“a system of 

free common schools”); DeRolph, 728 N.E.2d at 1001 (“thorough and efficient”); Tenn. 

Small Sch. Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 150–51 (“a system of free common schools”).

48See Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 1248–49.

49See Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1010–11.

50See Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness, 680 So. 2d at 406.

51See McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 165.

52See Evans, 850 P.2d at 734.

53See Bonner ex rel. Bonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516, 520 (Ind. 2009).
136

the Justices, 624 So. 2d 107 (Ala. 1993), the Alabama circuit court 

declared that “it is well-settled in this state that when the state deprives 

citizens of liberty for the purposes of benefiting them with a service, due 

process requires that the service be provided to them in an adequate 

form.” Op. of the Justices, 624 So. 2d at 161. This approach, however, 

was later overruled by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte James, 

836 So. 2d 813, 819 (Ala. 2002).

5. Issues arising in state education cases based on state equal 

protection clauses. In state education cases arising under state privileges 

and immunities or state equal protection challenges, several issues 

repetitively appear in the cases. They include the standard of review, 

whether a party attacking an education scheme must show intentional 

discrimination, and whether the plaintiffs have identified a class 

sufficient to support an equal protection claim. 

A critical issue is the standard of review. A significant number of 

state supreme court cases have found that education gives rise to a 

fundamental interest under state constitutions. These cases reach this 

result in a number of ways. Some of them explicitly adopt the 

fundamental interest framework advanced in San Antonio and find that 

because education is expressly or impliedly rooted in their state 

constitutions, it arises to a fundamental interest for equal protection 

purposes. See Washakie Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 

310, 333 (Wyo. 1980). Others depart from the San Antonio framework 

and either apply a more generous test, finding a fundamental interest 

based on the underlying importance of education generally,54 or a 

 54See Serrano II, 557 P.2d at 951; Robinson v. Cahill, 351 A.2d 713, 720 (N.J. 

1975).
137

narrower test than in San Antonio in order to avoid a finding of 

fundamental interest.55

In contrast to these cases, some state supreme courts have 

followed San Antonio and applied a rational basis standard to education 

challenges. In most of these cases, the state frameworks have been 

upheld.56 But not in every case. In several cases, state supreme courts 

have applied a rational basis “with teeth” test and have invalidated state 

education structures on that basis.57

A second issue is whether the plaintiff has the burden of showing 

disparate treatment. With respect to disparate treatment, the state 

courts that address the issue generally build on the dissent in 

San Antonio, which notes that the class consists of persons residing in 

low property tax jurisdictions who are treated differently than those in 

tax rich geographic locations. See San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 69–70, 93 

S. Ct. at 1315, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 64 (White, J., dissenting); Serrano I, 487 

P.2d at 1261 (state’s general freedom to discriminate based on 

geographical basis will be significantly curtailed by the Equal Protection 

Clause); Tenn. Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 154 (Tenn. 

1993) (citing substantial disparity based on school districts).

A final issue frequently arising in equal protection analysis is the 

power of the state’s asserted interest in local control in the education 

arena. As noted in Serrano I and subsequent cases, local control is a 

“cruel illusion” if disparities are imposed on poor districts due to the 

 55See Thompson, 537 P.2d at 644–45; Comm. for Educ. Rights, 672 N.E.2d at 

1194–95.

56See, e.g., Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1022–23. It should be noted, however, that in 

Lujan the plaintiffs failed to plead or prove a denial of educational opportunity. This 

amounts to the failure to plead and prove an adequacy claim. Id. at 1018; see also

McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156.

57See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93; Tenn. Small Sch. Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 154.
138

limitations placed on them by the system itself. Serrano I, 487 P.2d at 

1260; see also DuPree v. Alma Sch. Dist. No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Ark. 

1983). If there are disparities in educational opportunity, a factual 

question arises: Are the disparities due to local decisions, or are they 

caused by the state system of financing and providing of education? See 

Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806, 815 (Ariz. 

1994) (holding question of whether disparities caused by local decision 

making or by public school system raises factual question for trial court). 

6. Issues related to the type and scope of relief. A critical issue in 

education cases is the type of relief sought by the plaintiffs. Some 

plaintiffs seek what some commentators have identified as parity in 

educational opportunity.58 Others seek only an “adequate” or a “sound, 

basic” education. The choice of relief can have dramatic implications for 

the litigation.

Plaintiffs who seek parity do not require precisely the same 

educational opportunities, but substantially the same opportunities, as 

others. The strength of parity theory is that it is perfectly 

understandable and judicially manageable, namely, that the educational 

program in school districts needs to be substantially the same. The 

problems, however, are multiple. Parity theory often requires that the 

state abandon traditional reliance on local property taxes to fund 

education. Plaintiffs seeking parity thus raise a specter of “Robin Hood” 

remedies whereby wealthier school districts are required to transfer 

educational funds to poorer districts, with the result that the quality of 

education in more fortunate school districts suffers.

 58See, e.g., William E. Thro, Judicial Paradigms of Educational Equality, 174 

Educ. Law Rep. 1, 7 (2003). 
139

In part because of the difficulties of parity theory, plaintiffs have 

developed an alternate theory that does not seek parity but instead 

adequacy. The advantage of adequacy theory is obvious: it does not 

require that any wealthy school district transfer funds or sacrifice its 

program, but merely requires the state to ensure that it provides an 

adequate education to all students. The adequacy approach does not 

require the complete abandonment of local property taxes.

The major challenge with adequacy theory is the development of a 

proper standard. For example, in Abbeville County School District v. 

State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 540 (S.C. 1999), the South Carolina Supreme 

Court found a right to a “minimally adequate education.” According to 

the South Carolina Supreme Court, a minimally adequate education 

included:

1) the ability to read, write, and speak the English 

language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical 

science;

2) a fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and 

political systems, and of history and governmental 

processes; and

3) academic and vocational skills. 

Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist., 515 S.E.2d at 540.

The Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose developed a more detailed 

seven-factor test. The Kentucky Supreme Court has stated that in order 

to provide an adequate education, the state must establish a system of 

education with the ultimate goal of providing to each and every child 

seven capabilities:

(i) sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable 

students to function in a complex and rapidly changing 

civilization; (ii) sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and 

political systems to enable the student to make informed 

choices; (iii) sufficient understanding of governmental 

processes to enable the student to understand the issues 

that affect his or her community, state, and nation; (iv) 
140

sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental 

and physical wellness; (v) sufficient grounding in the arts to 

enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and 

historical heritage; (vi) sufficient training or preparation for 

advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so 

as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work 

intelligently; and (vii) sufficient levels of academic or 

vocational skills to enable public school students to compete 

favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in 

academics or in the job market.

Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 212; Leandro, 488 S.E.2d at 255 (adopting an 

adaptation of the Rose standards); see also Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 

Inc. v. State, 801 N.E.2d 326, 330 (N.Y. 2003) (adopting standard of 

adequacy).

A third approach to adequacy was taken by the Arkansas Supreme 

Court in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 91 S.W.3d 472 

(Ark. 2002). In Lake View, the Arkansas Supreme Court declared in 

order to provide an “adequate” education, the state must provide 

standards, develop a system to determine whether the goals are being 

met, and establish a system of accountability to determine whether 

funds that are being spent are providing educational opportunity. Lake 

View, 91 S.W.3d at 500.

In addition to type of relief, a second issue arises regarding the 

scope of relief. Many courts in the first instance after finding 

constitutional violations merely provide declaratory relief and exercise 

continuing jurisdiction to review legislative responses to court rulings. 

For example, in Lake View, the court stressed that it had no intention “to 

monitor or superintend the public schools of this state.” Id. at 511. The 

court instead affirmed a lower court order granting declaratory relief and 

indicated that it would not hesitate to review the state’s school funding 

system once again in an appropriate case. Id.; see also Horton v. Meskill, 

376 A.2d 359, 375 (Conn. 1977) (noting that while it is emphatically the 
141

duty of the court to declare what the law is, remedies could be limited to 

declaratory relief out of respect for other branches of government); Rose, 

790 S.W.2d at 214 (declining to direct specific action); Campaign for 

Fiscal Equity, Inc., 801 N.E.2d at 344–45 (discussing dialogue with 

legislature). Initially, at least, the remedies of these courts do not 

intrude deeply on the legislative process other than to declare legal 

requirement. Over time, however, courts have become more involved in 

crafting specific legislative remedies in the face of legislative inaction or 

intransigence. See, e.g., Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 971 A.2d 989, 

994–96 (N.J. 2009).

VI. Application of State Constitutional Principles in Iowa.

A. Threshold Question. The district court determined that the 

issues raised in this case were nonjusticiable political questions. I 

disagree. We are called upon, in this case, to decide what the law 

means. This is the heart of judicial review. We are not called upon to 

exercise the authority expressly delegated to another branch of 

government. See, e.g., Rell, 990 A.2d at 217–25. We are called upon to 

do our job. See Martin H. Redish, Judicial Review and the “Political 

Question,” 79 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1031, 1059–60 (1984); see generally Louis 

Henkin, Is There a “Political Question” Doctrine?, 85 Yale L.J. 597 (1976). 

Notwithstanding some contrary dicta dusted about in Justice Mansfield’s 

opinion, there is clearly no “political question” posed in this case.

B. State Education Clause. The Iowa education clause is 

categorized by some scholars as a fairly strong education clause.59 

 59William E. Thro, Note, To Render Them Safe: The Analysis of State 

Constitutional Provisions in Public School Finance Reform Litigation, 75 Va. L. Rev. 1639, 

1666 & n.118 (1989) (characterizing Iowa’s education provisions as a Category III 

provision that provides a “stronger and more specific” mandate than Categories I and II, 

but less specific than Category IV). On the other hand, another commentator has noted 

that other states, such as Virginia, Montana, Louisiana, and Washington, have 
142

Regardless of this characterization, it seems clear that education in Iowa 

is a highly valued constitutional interest. Iowa would not have gained 

admission to the Union as a state without an education clause. An 

article of the 1857 constitution was devoted exclusively to education. 

Although the Iowa Constitution authorized the general assembly to 

repeal provisions vesting authority over school matters in a board of 

education, this constitutional option related solely to the manner in 

which the state’s constitutional interest in education would be 

implemented. The Iowa Constitution, read in context, requires a system 

of “Common schools throughout the State.” See Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 

2, § 3. We said as much in Clark, where we emphasized that the State 

had an obligation under article IX, division 1, section 12 to provide “for 

the education of all the youths of the State, through a system of common 

schools.” Clark, 24 Iowa at 274 (quoting Iowa Const. art. IX, div. 1, 

§ 12).

Our constitutional provisions without question are as strong as 

others in which a constitutional right to an adequate education has been 

found. See, e.g., Rell, 990 A.2d at 210–12 (simply stating there shall be 

“free public elementary and secondary schools” in the state); McDuffy, 

615 N.E.2d at 517, 526 (stating that it shall be the duty of legislators “to 

cherish” public schools and grammar schools); Campaign for Fiscal 

Equity, Inc., 801 N.E.2d at 328 (“a system of free common schools”). The 

strong emphasis on education in the text (establishing “Common schools 

throughout the State”) and in our state government tradition cannot be 

doubted. For these reasons, the State at oral argument conceded that it 

_______________________________

education clauses that seem to demand a higher quality of education than the Iowa 

provisions and suggests that the Iowa provision is among state constitutional provisions 

“[s]etting [l]ower [s]tandards.” See Molly McUsic, The Use of Education Clauses in School 

Finance Reform Litigation, 28 Harv. J. on Legis. 307, 334–37 (1991). 
143

could not constitutionally refuse to provide public education to children 

and youth.

The State’s concession was not a blunder but the product of 

inescapable logic and a desire to avoid looking foolish. The Iowa 

constitutional provisions in article IX cannot be read to suggest that the 

legislature has the discretion to withdraw from public education and 

close the public schools. But, if there is a requirement that the State 

provide a public education for children and youth through “Common 

schools throughout the State,” it certainly must be implied that the 

education provided in the common schools must be a meaningful 

education and not just some empty formalism. There must be some 

substance to the mandatory duty, some concrete reality, some meat on 

the bones. Just as the “right to counsel” under the Federal and State 

Constitutions means the right to “effective” assistance of counsel, 

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 & n.14, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 1449 

& n.14, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763, 773 & n.14 (1970), the duty of the state to 

provide common schools throughout the state requires that the 

education in the schools meet minimum standards of adequacy.

Nothing in Kleen v. Porter, 237 Iowa 1160, 23 N.W.2d 904 (1946), 

is to the contrary. Kleen involved a question of providing additional 

funds for public schools, but did not address in any way the duty of the 

state to maintain common schools throughout the state. Kleen, 237 Iowa 

at 1167–69, 23 N.W.2d at 908–09. In fact, by citing article IX, division 1, 

section 12, Kleen supports the view of an ongoing obligation to provide a 

system of common schools to all youth. See id. at 1162, 23 N.W.2d at 

905.

Further, while Justice Mansfield’s opinion makes much of the fact 

that the framers did not include the word “free” in the education clause, 
144

this is hardly dispositive of whether there is a mandatory duty to make 

meaningful public education available in the common schools to 

everyone who desires an education. Charges that prevented a person 

from obtaining a public education in common schools would surely go 

the way of the poll tax. See Harper, 383 U.S. at 666–68, 86 S. Ct. at 

1081–82, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 172–73.

Justice Mansfield’s opinion states that because the plaintiffs did 

not cite article IX, division 1, section 12 of the Iowa Constitution in their 

trial brief, it can ignore the provision by regarding the argument as 

waived. Article IX, division 2, section 3, however, cannot be torn away 

from the previous constitutional provision. To begin with, the language 

of article IX, division 2, section 3 requiring the legislature to “encourage, 

by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and 

agricultural improvement” in my view incorporates within its scope the 

obligation to establish “a system of Common Schools” as required by 

article IX, division 1, section 12. My incorporation theory is strongly 

supported by reference in article IX, division 2, section 3 to a perpetual 

fund for “Common schools throughout the State,” namely, the “system of 

Common Schools” referred to in article IX, division 1, section 12. In my 

view, Justice Mansfield’s opinion seeks to separate the twins that were 

joined at birth in a way that elevates form over substance. See Office of 

Consumer Advocate v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 465 N.W.2d 280, 

283–84 (Iowa 1991) (holding error is preserved under Due Process Clause 

even though the party merely cited to the Fourteenth Amendment, 

stating to rule otherwise would “elevate[] form over substance”). In 

addition, it is difficult to understand how Justice Mansfield’s opinion 

finds that the education, due process, and privileges and immunities 

issues, though not briefed on appeal, are properly before the court as 
145

“interrelated” with the issue of justiciability, while the substantive 

obligations of article IX, division 1, section 12 and article IX, division 2, 

section 3 are not.

In any event, there is no question that the issue of whether 

education is a fundamental interest under the privileges and immunities 

clause of the Iowa Constitution was preserved in the trial court, and 

according to Justice Mansfield’s opinion, may be considered on appeal 

even though the matter has not been briefed before this court. 

Therefore, even assuming the claim under article IX, division 1, section 

12 is “waived,” the issue of applicability of the privileges and immunities 

clause remains very much alive under the issue preservation reasoning 

of Justice Mansfield’s opinion. Any right to an education under article IX 

is coextensive to the fundamental right to an education under the 

privileges and immunities clause, the only difference being the right to an 

education under article IX does not require a classification.

C. Privileges and Immunities Clause. The first issue for 

consideration under Iowa’s privileges and immunities clause is whether 

education may be characterized as a fundamental interest under the 

traditional framework. If one utilizes the test enunciated in San Antonio, 

the answer is plainly yes. According to San Antonio, a fundamental 

interest is present when an interest is explicitly or implicitly protected by 

constitutional provisions. See San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 33, 93 S. Ct. at 

1297, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 43. Plainly, the Iowa education articles meet the 

test. Further, under San Antonio, the question of whether there is a 

fundamental interest in a minimally adequate education was expressly 

reserved. Id. at 36–37, 93 S. Ct. at 1298–99, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 44–45. 

Thus, even applying the federal constitutional test, a student’s interest in 
146

an adequate education would be a fundamental interest under the Iowa 

Constitution in light of the explicit provisions for education.

Further, aside from the San Antonio test, I conclude education is a 

fundamental interest under other tests fashioned by state supreme 

courts. The express Iowa constitutional provisions; the centrality of 

education to our state’s history; the strong and unqualified traditional 

support for education of Iowa’s political leaders; the inextricable 

relationship between education and other key constitutional rights, 

namely, the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, the right to petition 

government, and the undeniable proposition that an individual has little 

prospect of enjoying life, liberty, and property without an education in 

the postmodern world; and the centrality of education to human dignity; 

all convince me that education must be considered a fundamental 

interest under Iowa’s privileges and immunities clause. See Serrano I, 

487 P.2d at 1255–59; Robinson v. Cahill, 351 A.2d 713, 720 (N.J. 1975). 

To characterize the interest in education as something other than 

fundamental seems like a play on words.60 I would thus join the 

supreme courts of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, 

Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Virginia, 

and Wisconsin in finding that education is an interest that may trigger 

heightened scrutiny under state privileges and immunities or equal 

protection clauses.61

 60As noted above, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 26, 

describes the right to a public education as a human right. The Universal Declaration 

has been ratified by the United States. The case of The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 

20 S. Ct. 290, 44 L. Ed. 320 (1900), stands for the proposition that international treaty 

obligations are binding upon United States courts. The West Virginia Supreme Court 

relied on the Universal Declaration in declaring that education is a fundamental right 

under its state constitution. Pauley, 255 S.E.2d at 863 n.5, 878. 

61See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93; Serrano II, 557 P.2d at 952; Horton, 376 

A.2d at 373; Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 206; Skeen, 505 N.W.2d at 313–14; Robinson, 351 
147

In fact, the motivating reasons for not finding education 

“fundamental” has nothing to do with its importance or essential 

character. Instead, courts are sometimes reluctant to characterize 

education as “fundamental” because they fear the consequences of strict 

scrutiny, which has been described as strict in theory but fatal in fact. 

See, e.g., McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 167 (citing need to avoid inflexible 

constitutional restraints that result from strict scrutiny); Norman 

Dorsen, Equal Protection of the Laws, 74 Colum. L. Rev. 357, 362 (1974) 

(noting that the “sharp dichotomy between the rational basis and strict 

scrutiny tests produces back-door evasions of the two-tiered formula”); 

Gerald Gunther, Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing 

Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1972) 

[hereinafter Gunther] (first suggesting strict in theory, fatal in fact 

formulation); Martha M. McCarthy, Is The Equal Protection Clause Still A 

Viable Tool for Effecting Educational Reform?, 6 J.L. & Educ. 159, 178 

(1977) (noting rigor of strict scrutiny test has caused courts to limit 

rights identified as suspect or fundamental so as not to unduly invade 

legislative power). The fatal-in-fact feature of strict scrutiny is thought to 

be inappropriate in situations involving complex matters such as 

education.

I find merit in the argument that strict scrutiny as traditionally 

applied by the United States Supreme Court and by this court should not 

be used to evaluate all educational differences between school districts. 

For instance, a marginal or insubstantial difference between school 

districts—such as the failure to offer a handful of noncore courses, or the 

_______________________________

A.2d at 720; Tenn. Small Sch. Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 154–56; Scott, 443 S.E.2d at 142; 

Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 585 P.2d at 92; Pauley, 255 S.E.2d at 878; Kukor, 436 N.W.2d 

at 579.
148

lack of certain helpful but hardly essential extracurricular activities—

should not trigger a strict scrutiny analysis. This concern over the 

consequences of strict scrutiny, however, can be addressed by limiting 

heightened review only to asserted violations of a right to an adequate or 

basic education. 

The concept of heightened protection for an adequate or basic 

education but not for all educational differences has support in the 

caselaw of other states. For example, both the Minnesota and Wisconsin 

Supreme Courts have adopted such an approach in their efforts to sort 

through the constitutional issues related to education. See Skeen v. 

State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 315 (Minn. 1993); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 

568, 579 (Wis. 1989).

By limiting heightened scrutiny to the deprivation of an adequate 

or basic education and by employing a lesser degree of scrutiny to 

legislative classifications that do not impinge on an adequate education, 

state officials would have ample breathing room for their important 

policy-making role, yet still require that the state provide all students 

with a meaningful educational opportunity. 

The next question which arises is the content of a basic or 

adequate education that triggers heightened scrutiny. Based on the 

reasoning of the adequacy cases cited above, I conclude that a basic or 

adequate education must be sufficient to allow a person to participate 

meaningfully in democracy through the right to vote, the right to petition 

government, and jury duty, and to have meaningful prospects of enjoying 

“life, liberty, and property.” In order to achieve these ends, education 

must be sufficient to allow an individual a meaningful opportunity to 

participate in economic life in the postmodern world. See Campaign for 

Fiscal Equity, Inc., 801 N.E.2d at 330–32; Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. 
149

State, 599 S.E.2d 365, 379–81 (N.C. 2004); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist., 

515 S.E.2d at 540; Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 211–13. In order to satisfy 

these demands, I would adopt a variant of the factors in Rose and other 

adequacy cases: An educational program must, among other things, 

include effectively teaching the ability to read and write, to communicate 

effectively, to perform in mathematical computations, to have exposure to 

scientific principles, to have a basic understanding of economics and 

government, and to learn how to use computer-based technology that is 

so indispensible in the postmodern world. An education program need 

not guarantee results to meet the constitutional test, but it must provide 

a meaningful educational opportunity to participate in the political, 

social, and economic life.

I would not, however, adopt the approach of the Arkansas 

Supreme Court in Lake View. While the adoption of standards, systems 

of monitoring, and systems of accountability might help ensure 

compliance with the substantive constitutional requirements outlined in 

this opinion, I would not mandate the precise manner in which the State 

performs its constitutional obligation. I would decline to enter the fray of 

educational philosophy other than as required to ensure that children 

have a reasonable opportunity to a basic education and that all other 

material differences in educational opportunity be justified by a rational 

basis as described below.

The defense to privileges-and-immunities-type claims is, of course, 

invariably “local control.” But local control is not an automatic trump 

card that applies as a matter of law in all cases involving educational 

interests as Justice Mansfield’s opinion seems to believe. Instead, 

whether “local control” will be sufficient to carry the day will depend 

upon a number of determinations. First, the court must determine, as a 
150

matter of fact, whether the alleged shortcomings in education are 

present. Second, the court must determine if the plaintiff can prove that 

state action has caused the deprivations. Third, assuming that 

deprivations are present and they are caused by the state, the question 

arises whether the deprivation is sufficient to undermine the right to an 

adequate or basic education. If the shortcomings deprive the plaintiffs of 

a basic education, then heightened scrutiny will apply to the 

classification. To the extent “local control” is asserted as the legitimate 

basis for a classification, the decision to provide different services must 

be a discretionary choice of local administrators and not the result of 

state law or legal structure that forces local decision makers into 

Hobson’s choices. See Tenn. Small School Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 154–55 

(the issue is not whether local control is a good thing, but whether the 

statutory framework actually promotes it or undercuts it). Local control, 

however, must not be a “euphemism masking gross inequalities in the 

abilities of school districts to meet their needs.” Lujan v. Colo. State Bd. 

of Educ., 649 P.2d 1005, 1040 (Colo. 1982) (Lohr, J., dissenting).62

My approach to Iowa’s privileges and immunities clause is not 

necessarily a departure from federal precedent. As noted in San Antonio

and Papasan, the question of whether there is a fundamental right to a 

minimally adequate education is still open under the Federal Equal 

 62There is a suggestion that to find any meaningful judicial role in the field of 

education under a state constitution would set a “dangerous” precedent. Such an 

extreme characterization is belied by court decisions in rulings in many states, 

including Texas, New York, California, South Carolina, New Jersey, Arkansas, West 

Virginia, Kentucky, and Washington. The suggestion of dangerousness would likely be 

surprising to the four sober dissenting Justices of the United States Supreme Court in 

San Antonio. While the decisions of the various state supreme courts and the opinions 

of the four dissenting Justices in San Antonio are not, of course, “dangerous,” they may 

be controversial. Of course, judicial decisions are driven by applicable legal principles 

and underlying facts, not by public approval or disapproval.
151

Protection Clause. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285, 106 S. Ct. 

2932, 2944, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209, 232 (1986); San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 36–

37, 93 S. Ct. at 1298–99, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 44–45. Moreover, applying the 

San Antonio test of what amounts to a fundamental interest (explicit or 

implicit protection in the constitution itself), my conclusion seems 

inescapable. In any event, even if my approach affords greater protection 

to education under our privileges and immunities clause than is 

available under the Federal Equal Protection Clause, this is not unusual. 

State courts in at least twenty-one states have interpreted their equality 

clauses more expansively than the United States Supreme Court’s 

interpretation of equal protection. See Jeffrey M. Shaman, The Evolution 

of Equality in State Constitutional Law, 34 Rutgers L.J. 1013, 1031 

(2003).

To the extent plaintiffs show a classification affecting education 

that does not impinge upon their fundamental right to an adequate 

education, I conclude that a type of rational basis test should apply. A 

simple declaration that such nonfundamental classifications are subject 

to rational basis review is not the end of the matter. As has been 

repeatedly and widely recognized, there are many variations and 

permutations of the rational basis test.63 

 63See, e.g., Robert C. Farrell, Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme 

Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans, 32 Ind. L. Rev. 357, 382 (1999) 

(noting different rational basis tests); Jennifer L. Greenblatt, Putting the Government to 

the (Heightened, Intermediate, or Strict) Scrutiny Test: Disparate Application Shows Not 

All Rights and Powers Are Created Equal, 10 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 421, 477 (2009) 

(United States Supreme Court has plainly strayed from three-tiered approach); 

Gunther, 86 Harv. L. Rev. at 17–24 (noting dissatisfaction with tiers and tendency to 

intervene without strict scrutiny); R. Randall Kelso, Standards of Review Under the 

Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: 

The “Base Plus Six” Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 225, 

230–33 (2002) (identifying three different types of rational basis review in United States 

Supreme Court cases); Raffi S. Baroutjian, Note, The Advent of the Multifactor, SlidingScale Standard of Equal Protection Review: Out with the Traditional Three-Tier Method of 

Analysis, in with Romer v. Evans, 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1277, 1301–05 (1997) (citing 
152

For example, the United States Supreme Court has clearly applied 

a number of materially different rational basis tests. A first type of 

rational basis test employed by the Supreme Court is the one utilized by 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion, where a statute is examined to determine if 

there is “any conceivable basis” to support it. The Supreme Court also 

sometimes engages in what has been called “a second order” rational 

basis review where there is inquiry into whether, as a matter of fact, the 

claimed purposes of the statute have adequate factual support. See

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 626–35, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 1624–28, 134 L. 

Ed. 2d 855, 862–68 (1996) (applying more substantial rational basis test 

in invalidating Colorado constitutional amendment to prohibit 

government from enacting antidiscrimination ordinances by calling 

asserted purposes “implausible”); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 

473 U.S. 432, 448, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3258, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313, 325 (1985) 

(citing lack of evidence in “the record” to justify denying occupants use of 

site); U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 535–36, 93 S. Ct. 2821, 

2826, 37 L. Ed. 2d 782, 788–89 (1973) (invalidating antifraud regulation 

excluding households with unrelated individuals from receiving food 

stamps based on “unsubstantiated” assumptions); Robert C. Farrell, 

Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 

Term Through Romer v. Evans, 32 Ind. L. Rev. 357, 358 (1999) 

(identifying two sets of rationality cases decided by United States 

_______________________________

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), as example of 

stricter rational basis review under Federal Equal Protection Clause); Peter S. Smith, 

Note, The Demise of Three-Tier Review: Has the United States Supreme Court Adopted A 

“Sliding Scale” Approach Toward Equal Protection Jurisprudence?, 23 J. Contemp. L. 

475, 480–88 (1997) (citing Justice Marshall dissents advocating sliding scale approach); 

Neelum J. Wadhwani, Note, Rational Reviews, Irrational Results, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 801, 

803 (2006) (noting waffling between rational basis test—where any conceivable 

government interests is sufficient—and more stringent test, which includes inquiry 

regarding whether the actual government action taken is justifiable). 
153

Supreme Court with no connection between them); Robert C. Farrell, The 

Two Versions of Rational-Basis Review and Same-Sex Relationships, 86 

Wash. L. Rev. 281, 282 (2011) (characterizing Supreme Court rational 

basis review cases as Jekyll and Hyde- or Janus-like); R. Randall Kelso, 

Standards of Review Under the Equal Protection Clause and Related 

Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: The “Base Plus Six” 

Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 225, 

227–37 (2002) (describing three types of rational basis tests).

There have long been calls for the United States Supreme Court to 

abandon its approach to “any conceivable basis” rational basis scrutiny. 

In a seminal law review article published in 1972, Gerald Gunther urged 

the Court to develop a more meaningful approach to equal protection 

that included more stringent rational basis review. See Gunther, 86 

Harv. L. Rev. at 20–24. In a series of opinions, Justice Marshall and 

Justice Stevens have pointed out the inconsistencies in the Court’s cases 

and advocated an honest reevaluation of the doctrine. See City of 

Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 451–55, 105 S. Ct. at 3260–63, 87 L. Ed. 2d at 

327–30 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring); Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 

U.S. 307, 321–22, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 2571–72, 49 L. Ed. 2d 520, 529–30 

(1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting). So far, the United States Supreme Court 

has not explicitly resolved the tensions in its cases.

Aside from inconsistency, there is another reason for state 

supreme courts to depart from federal precedent when analyzing equal 

protection-type claims. A major factor in the highly deferential rational 

basis standard developed by the United States Supreme Court is the 

desire to honor federalism and to avoid imposing national solutions onto 

the states. Justice Harlan warned long ago that national application of 

federal standards to the states in order to give the states elbow room in 
154

their criminal processes would lead to a dilution of substantive 

constitutional protections. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 117, 118, 90 

S. Ct. 1914, 1915, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446, 447 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring 

in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, federalism constraints were a 

motivating factor in the Supreme Court’s refusal to impose strict scrutiny 

in San Antonio. Because of the federalism concerns, the Federal Equal 

Protection Clause tends to be among the most underenforced of 

constitutional provisions. See Hershkoff, 112 Harv. L. Rev. at 1134–38;

Lawrence Gene Sager, Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced 

Constitutional Norms, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1212, 1218 (1978). The 

federalism concern, of course, is wholly absent when state courts 

consider claims under the state constitutions.

As a result, it is not surprising that a number of state supreme 

courts have declined to follow the federal model and have developed their 

own approach to equal protection or privileges and immunities review.64 

Many of the more than a dozen states that have privileges and 

immunities type language rely to some extent on the tiered federal model, 

but there are many variations. Several states have rejected the “any 

conceivable basis” rationality standard for more exacting judicial review 

of some legislative classifications. See, e.g., Trujillo v. City of 

Albuquerque, 965 P.2d 305, 314 (N.M. 1998); MacCallum v. Seymour, 686 

A.2d 935, 938–39 (Vt. 1996). Other states, for instance, have adopted a 

unitary test that balances the nature of the right, the extent to which the 

government intrudes upon the right, and the need for the restriction. 

 64For a rich description of state constitutional provisions related to equal 

treatment under the law and the power of state courts to interpret them independently 

of federal law, see 1 Jennifer Friesen, State Constitutional Law: Litigating Individual 

Rights, Claims, and Defenses § 3:01, at 3–2 through 3–15 (4th ed. 2006). See also

Schuman, 13 Vt. L. Rev. at 221–22; Shaman, 34 Rutgers L.J. at 1029–56. 
155

See, e.g., Dep’t of Revenue v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 629 (Alaska 1993); 

Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Farmer, 762 A.2d 620, 632–43 (N.J. 

2000). Other states have adopted a system of means-focused scrutiny 

that appears more intensive than the most lenient standard sometimes 

applied by the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. Mowrey, 

9 P.3d 1217, 1221 (Idaho 2000).

The variability in “rational basis” tests is demonstrated in the state 

education cases. Some courts, like Indiana, have declared over a strong 

dissent that, as a matter of law, local control is an adequate rational 

basis to justify a state framework for providing education. Other states, 

however, like Arkansas, have found after the development of substantial 

factual records that their system of state funding fails to meet even the 

rational basis test. See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 95. 

There is much to be said for a more searching rational basis 

review. The “any conceivable basis” test tends to be no review at all. The 

cases show some striking examples, like Louisiana legislation where only 

licensed florists may arrange flowers, defended as a health measure, and 

an Oklahoma statute preventing anyone other than a person with a 

license in mortuary science from selling caskets. See Clark Neily, No 

Such Thing: Litigating Under the Rational Basis Test, 1 N.Y.U. J. L. & 

Liberty 898, 906 (2005).

The suggestion that the incantation of the phrase “local control” is 

sufficient to decide this case at this stage as a matter of law cannot stand 

scrutiny. When an allegation of a violation of our privileges and 

immunities clause in the field of education is alleged, we should turn a 

cocked ear, not a blind eye. When local control is asserted as a 

justification for differences in educational quality, we should consider 

whether local educational leaders are, in fact, making local choices 
156

entitled to deference, or whether they are forced into Hobson’s choices 

because of an educational structure that prevents them from delivering a 

quality education. The concept was well expressed by one observer, who 

noted that “[e]verywhere, local autonomy is compromised by centralized 

authority. . . . Practically, the rhetoric of local autonomy is difficult to 

take seriously given overwhelming evidence of the fiscal, political, and 

judicial domination of local governments by higher tiers of the state.” 

Gordon L. Clark, Judges and the Cities: Interpreting Local Autonomy 113–

14 (1985) (citation omitted). In other words, the question we should ask 

is this: Is local control really at work, or is it a euphemism masking 

inequalities in the ability of school districts to provide educational 

opportunities to its students? See Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1040 (Lohr, J., 

dissenting). 

Justice Mansfield’s opinion employs the label “local control” 

without analysis of exactly what that means. In San Antonio, local 

control was favored because it encouraged citizen participation in 

decision making, permitted the structuring of school programs to fit local 

needs, and encouraged “experimentation, innovation, and a healthy 

competition for educational excellence.” San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 50, 93 

S. Ct. at 1305, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 52–53. Should we declare, as a matter of 

law, that the distinctions between the various school districts in this case 

were the result of these factors? Is it not possible that, in this case, the 

state regulatory framework in actuality deprives local school boards of 

local control in the sense that they do not have the practical ability to 

make considered policy choices? Would the responsible school officials 

in the districts where the plaintiffs reside claim that the alleged dramatic 

differences in teacher experience, course loads per teacher, and 

curriculum offerings were the result of a local, discretionary choice or 
157

would they cite systemic limitations? Does the way education is 

structured in Iowa promote local control or restrict it? We will, of course, 

never know the answer to these questions in light of the summary 

dismissal of the case without the development of a factual record.

In RACI, we conducted a meaningful rational basis review. 

Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d at 7–8. We were not content to rest solely on the 

pleadings, but conducted a factual inquiry to see whether the purported 

justifications, while conceivable, were in fact sufficient to support a 

statutory distinction. Specifically, we noted that the conceivable state 

interest must have “a basis in fact.” Id.

In my view, we should apply a meaningful rational basis test in 

this case with respect to classifications which adversely affect the 

plaintiffs but do not arise to deprivations of an adequate education. It 

allows substantial deference to decisions of other branches of 

government, but imposes a reality check to prevent arbitrary and 

irrational distinctions from creeping into educational structures in the 

name of “local control.”65

D. Due Process Clause. I have no doubt that there is a potential 

due process claim in light of the compulsory nature of school attending. 

We said as much in Exira. The notion is uncontroversial that where a 

 65The claim that this court should not function as an elected school board 

creates a straw person. No one advocated interference with the daily administration of 

school boards in this case or in the dozens of other state court cases that have found a 

fundamental right to a basic education. While we must maintain a healthy respect for 

the other branches of government, we must fearlessly perform our role as judges to 

ensure that the other branches of government perform their duties in a manner 

consistent with the Iowa Constitution. Indeed, the very purpose of the privileges and 

immunities clause in the Iowa Constitution is to restrain elected officials from treating 

citizens differently in ways that do not make sense. Bromides about elections and 

ballot boxes do not assist the court in its performance of the difficult but essential role 

of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 

L. Ed. 60, 73 (1803). To suggest that elected bodies always have the last word in 

educational matters is, of course, the argument raised in opposition to Brown.
158

liberty interest is impaired—and surely it is impaired by mandatory 

school attendance—the deprivation of liberty must be rationally related 

to a legitimate state objective. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324, 102 S. Ct. at 

2462, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 42–43. There is also no doubt that education is a 

legitimate state objective. The question under due process is whether the 

education received by the person whose liberty is impaired is rationally 

related to the state’s legitimate interest in educating citizens. Any 

application of the due process clause, however, would give the state a 

wide range of permissible action in providing education to its charges. 

There is no due process right to a specific kind of education, but only a 

sufficiently reasonable educational effort to justify the intrusion on the 

liberty interest.

E. Application of Law to Facts Alleged in the Petition. Having 

established the necessary legal framework, the question remains whether 

the petition alleges sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. Our 

pleading caselaw requires a general notice of the nature of the claim, but 

does not require pleading of detailed facts. Davis v. Ottumwa YMCA, 438 

N.W.2d 10, 13 (Iowa 1989). We have stated that pleading is sufficient if 

it apprises the opposing party of the nature of the incident out of which 

the claim arose and the general nature of the action. Haugland v. 

Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984). We have stated that “[i]n 

Iowa, very little is required by way of pleading to provide notice.” Wilker 

v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590, 595 (Iowa 2001). Notice pleading in Iowa 

does not require pleading of ultimate facts that support the elements of 

the cause of action but only facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of 

fair notice of the claim. Schmidt v. Wilkinson, 340 N.W.2d 282, 283–84 

(Iowa 1983). 
159

Our principles of pleading were well stated in U.S. Bank v. Barbour, 

770 N.W.2d 350, 353–54 (Iowa 2009), in which we stated that “[n]early 

every case will survive a motion to dismiss” and that the “fair notice” 

requirement is met if the petition “informs the defendant of the incident 

giving rise to the claim and of the claim’s general nature.” We recently 

affirmed our approach in Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa 

Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600, 609 (Iowa 2012), in which we rejected 

an effort to institute a heightened pleading requirement sometimes used 

by the United States Supreme Court, see, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678–79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949–50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 883–84 

(2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 

1955, 1973–74, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 949 (2007), and reaffirmed our 

traditional generous pleading approach.

I conclude that the plaintiffs’ claim should not be dismissed at this 

stage. The plaintiffs claim they are being deprived of an “effective 

education” and an “adequate education.” They claim their education is 

so deficient that students “are not prepared to enter the workforce or 

post-secondary education” and are not “prepared for responsible 

citizenship, further learning and productive employment in a global 

economy.” They have also pled differences in the quality of education in 

their school districts in terms of teacher experience, course loads, and 

course offerings. In light of our pleading rules, which have been held to 

provide that “very little is required by way of pleading to provide notice,” 

these allegations are sufficient to raise a claim of adequacy that cannot 

be precluded as a matter of law at this stage of the proceedings. See 

Wilker, 630 N.W.2d at 595; Herschler, 606 P.2d at 316 (attack on 

“system” is sufficient to survive motion to dismiss); see also Lujan, 649 

P.2d at 1010 (appellees did not plead or prove denial of educational 
160

opportunity); Hornbeck v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 458 A.2d 758, 780 

(Md. 1983) (no allegation of deprivation of a right to adequate education).

In any event, there is no question that the plaintiffs state a claim 

reviewable under a rational basis test, which in my view requires factual 

development of the relationship between the purported purposes of the 

policies that cause the differences between school districts and whether 

the means chosen rationally advance them. Preexisting commitment to 

the ideology of “Our Localism” does not form a legally sufficient basis for 

rejecting a more nuanced inquiry when an interest as important as 

education is involved.66 

It may well be, of course, that the plaintiffs may fail, in whole or in 

part, to prove their case. But they are entitled to attempt to prove it. A 

motion to dismiss is not a vehicle to dismiss claims that some on an 

appellate court may perceive as weak. The only issue when considering 

a motion to dismiss is the “petitioner’s right of access to the district 

court, not the merits of his allegations.” Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278, 

284 (Iowa 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The 

approach taken in Justice Mansfield’s opinion to the pleading in this 

case is a marked departure from our pleading requirements generally 

and has no precedential value except to dispose of this case. 

F. Remedies. It is sometimes suggested that remedial difficulties 

require the judiciary to abandon the field of enforcing state constitutional 

commands related to education. Ordinarily, respect for the coordinate 

branches of government requires a court not to unduly intrude onto the 

workings of the other branches. As a result, in a case such as this one, 

 66The term “Our Localism” was coined by Richard Briffault in two important 

scholarly articles, Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part I—The Structure of Local 

Government Law, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1990), and Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part 

II—Localism and Legal Theory, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 346 (1990).
161

there is little to be gained, and much to be lost, by premature entry of 

detailed mandatory orders. If a constitutional violation is found, there 

will be a number of different possibilities that the legislature may wish to 

consider to solve the problem. As long as the ultimate action complies 

with the constitutional commands, this court has no interest in invading 

the discretion of the legislature. As Justice Jackson stated years ago, a 

holding of invalidity under the Equal Protection Clause “does not disable 

any governmental body from dealing with the subject at hand.” Ry. 

Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112, 69 S. Ct. 463, 466, 93 

L. Ed. 533, 540 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). 

The case against “The Structural Injunction” in the education 

context was made by Chief Justice Roy Moore, formerly of the Alabama 

Supreme Court, in Ex parte James. In that case, Chief Justice Moore 

went to great lengths to undermine the power of judicial review and to 

suggest that the courts must generally defer to political branches of 

government. Ex parte James, 836 So. 2d at 856 (Moore, C.J., concurring 

in the result in part and dissenting in part).

I do not find, however, that problems related to remedies should 

oust this court’s ability to consider the substantive merits of this case. 

Such an approach would establish an unwise precedent. Broadside 

statements regarding “The Structural Injunction,” for instance, threaten 

to undermine not only the result in this case, but bedrock cases such as 

Brown, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 

799 (1963), the courageous holding in Aderholt, and countless less 

celebrated cases dealing with the nitty gritty of obtaining constitutional 

compliance with respect to overcrowded prison systems and grossly 

inadequate mental health facilities. Sweeping declarations regarding 

remedies also ignore the highly nuanced approaches of many state 
162

courts to remedial issues related to the provision of adequate education 

that emphasize collaboration over confrontation. See, e.g., Rell, 990 A.2d 

at 221–23 (discussing need for flexible, graduate remedies); Campaign for 

Fiscal Equity, Inc., 801 N.E.2d at 344–49 (N.Y. 2003) (discussing flexible 

remedies in education context). 

While a prudent and respectful approach to potential remedies 

makes sense, this case should not be a springboard for this court to 

adopt a radical doctrine that threatens many decades of jurisprudence. 

A disabling doctrine of sharply curtailed remedies would reduce the 

guarantees of the State and Federal Constitutions that protect individual 

liberties and establish affirmative duties to hollow platitudes. This 

indirect substantive evisceration of our State and Federal Constitutions 

is a project that may appeal to others, but not to me.

VII. Conclusion.

In my view, regardless of whether the plaintiffs have pled and/or 

preserved a claim under article IX of the Iowa Constitution or stated a 

claim under the Due Process Clauses of the Iowa and Federal 

Constitutions, I believe it is inescapable that education is a fundamental 

interest under the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection. 

Because of the sensitive nature of educational decision making, however, 

I would differentiate between a basic or adequate education and other 

elements of education that fall outside that category. I would apply 

heightened scrutiny with respect to claims of deprivation of adequate 

education and only a rational basis type scrutiny to other claims.

Having determined these legal issues, I would apply our 

traditionally liberal pleading standards to the plaintiffs’ petition. The 

petition is not very precise and does not clearly outline what government 
163

action is causing what deprivation. Nevertheless, I am not prepared to 

say at this stage that there is no possibility that the plaintiffs will be able 

to show an entitlement to relief. Rather than rush to judgment in this 

case without the development of an adequate factual record, I would 

deny the motion to dismiss and remand the case to the district court for 

further proceedings.

Hecht, J., joins this dissent.