Opinion ID: 2294246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutional As Applied Challenge

Text: The issue present is whether the funding formula set forth by SFRA is a constitutionally valid replacement for the funding methodology ordered previously by the Court. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 551-52 [960 A. 2d 360]. A statute may be declared unconstitutional in one of two manners. First, it may be declared invalid on its face. [32] Second, a statute may be found unconstitutional as-applied to a particular set of circumstances. See State v. Cameron, 100 N.J. 586, 594 [498 A. 2d 1217] (1985). The Supreme Court has held [f]acial challenges are disfavored for several reasons. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, [___ U.S. ___, ___] 128 S.Ct. 1184, 1191 [170 L.Ed. 2d 151] (2008). First, they raise the risk of `premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually barebones records.' Ibid. (quoting Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609 [124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed. 2d 891] (2004)). Second, [f]acial challenges. . . run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither `anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it' nor `formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.' Wash. State Grange, 128 S.Ct. at 1191 (quoting Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347 [56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688] (1936)(Brandeis, J., concurring)). Finally, facial challenges . . . prevent[ ] laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Wash. State Grange, 128 S.Ct. at 1191. In this latest round, Plaintiffs have not asserted a facial challenge and therefore no further discussion of the same is warranted. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of SFRA's funding formula as-applied to the Abbott districts. Whether a statute passes a constitutional challenge as-applied to any individual school district at any particular time must be determined only in the factual context presented and in the light of circumstances as they appear. See Robinson v. Cahill, 69 N.J. 449, 455 [355 A. 2d 129] (1976). It is well recognized that legislative enactments enjoy a presumption of validity. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 550 [960 A. 2d 360]. Whenever a challenge is raised to the constitutionality of a statute, there is a strong presumption that the statute is constitutional. State v. Muhammad, 145 N.J. 23, 41 [678 A. 2d 164] (1996). However, given the unique procedural circumstances presented and as the enactment of SFRA came in the wake of the constraining circumstances of . . . prior remedial orders directed at the State[,] SFRA's constitutionality, which otherwise would be presumptive, must be approached differently. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 551-52 [960 A. 2d 360]. The Court's existing decisions and orders . . . must serve as the starting point for any discussion of the constitutionality of SFRA as applied to the pupils who are the beneficiaries of those rulings. Id. at 551 [960 A. 2d 360]. The issues to be resolved in determining whether SFRA is constitutional as-applied are whether the State has overcome the deficiencies found in CEIFA's funding provisions as-applied to Abbott districts; whether SFRA's formula sufficiently meets the special needs of disadvantaged students through its planned approach; whether it is reasonable to allow SFRA's approach to replace the open-ended, individual-district-needs-based approach that has evolved through the current method of supplemental-program funding; and whether the unique needs of Abbott students may be met, such that there can be a reasonable assurances these students will receive a thorough and efficient education.