Opinion ID: 894693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Too Many Districts

Text: First, there is no evidence to support a constitutional violation in every school district in Texas. Out of 1,031 school districts in Texas, only 329 filed suit, only 47 asserted the single constitutional claim the Court affirms, only 9 presented proof on that claim in any detail, and only 3 called a witness to prove it at trial. On this narrow basis, the Court declares the school-finance system in every district unconstitutional, and enjoins state funding for them all. This is too broad. As we recently noted, it has always been the law of equity that a permanent injunction must not grant relief which is... more comprehensive or restrictive than justified by the pleadings, the evidence, and the usages of equity. [91] Thus, for example, a permanent injunction against protests at five physicians' homes is too broad if the evidence shows protests occurred at only four. [92] Similarly, evidence of flies and foul odors from a 10-acre feedlot does not justify a permanent injunction extending to an entire 450-acre ranch. [93] An injunction may extend as far as the evidence, but no further. In their Article VIII claim, the plaintiffs did not challenge the tax-rate cap facially, [94] but only as it applied to them. In an as-applied constitutional challenge, we must evaluate the statute as it operates in practice against the particular plaintiff. [95] Yet the trial court did not even try to evaluate how the property-tax cap operates in practice against most of the 47 plaintiffs, much less the other 984 districts covered by the statewide permanent injunction. As the question is one of constitutionality, we cannot simply presume that all districts are alike. The trial judge pointed to evidence from nine focus districts and the testimony of a dozen superintendents as proof that loss of meaningful discretion was systemic/statewide. But there was no evidence these districts were statistically representative of all others. To the contrary, the handful of successful focus districts were un representative78 percent of the plaintiffs' focus districts were poor districts, while 72 percent of the actual plaintiffs were rich ones. Nor did the parties agree that proof about the focus districts proved anything about the rest. Even if they had, such an agreement would be unenforceable. In Terrazas v. Ramirez , we reversed a permanent injunction that ordered election redistricting based on an agreement by all the parties (including the Governor and Attorney General), [96] noting that such agreements are generally unenforceable in cases affecting the public: Apportionment affects every person in the State, yet only a very few parties can be involved in any lawsuit challenging redistricting. The trial court must attempt to consider the interests, not only of the parties in the case, but of others who are not present. For this reason, the agreement of the parties in a reapportionment lawsuit cannot alone be conclusive of either the validity of the statute or, if it is found to be invalid, the relief to be granted. [97] Similarly, as schools and property taxes affect far more Texans than the parties at this trial (none of whom, again, were simply taxpayers or families of school children), the trial court could not grant relief covering districts as to which there was no proof. [98] In a state as diverse as Texas, some programs and expenses may be mandatory in one district, but supplemental in another. Even if a dozen districts proved that they were forced to incur all their expenditures (which none did), that would not justify an injunction extending beyond them. [99] This is not a class action. No class has been certified, and given the individual ways in which each school district spends money, it is unlikely any could be. But even if one was, we could not grant relief extending to nonparty school districts without a rigorous analysis. [100] Yet the Court today grants a statewide injunction affecting hundreds of nonparty school districts without class certification, evidence, analysis, or even an explanation. This looks too much like enjoin now and worry later. [101]