Opinion ID: 1910318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Rodriguez Test Is Inapplicable to Nebraska's Constitution

Text: The crux of the Coalition's alternative argument is that the free instruction clause explicitly states the Legislature shall provide a free public education to persons between the ages of 5 and 21. Thus, it argues the Nebraska Constitution provides a fundamental right to educational funding. [22] Fundamental rights have been defined as those that are `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that `neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.' [58] The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the liberty specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, . . . to have children, . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, . . . to marital privacy, . . . to use contraception,. . . to bodily integrity, . . . and to abortion . . . . [59] The Coalition relies on the U.S. Supreme Court's statement in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez . [60] There, the Court stated that the key to discovering whether education is fundamental lies in assessing whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. [61] Yet many state courts have rejected the Rodriguez test for determining whether education is a fundamental right under their state constitution. [62] These courts have reasoned that state constitutions, unlike the federal constitution, are not of limited or delegated powers and are not restricted to provisions of fundamental import; consequently, whether a right is fundamental should not be predicated on its explicit or implicit inclusion in a state constitution. [63] Unlike the federal Constitution, state constitutions are not an enumerated list of the government's limited powers. States have all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to them by the U.S. Constitution. [64] State constitutions include provisions related to providing government services at the local level. Many state provisions for government services could as well have been left to statutory articulation under the Legislature's plenary power and are not considered implicit to our concept of ordered liberty. [65] [23] Accordingly, an express legislative power or duty to provide services in a state constitution pales in comparison to constitutional provisions prohibiting the government's interference with personal rights. As the Rodriguez Court recognized, there is a significant difference between a claim that government action has infringed upon the exercise of a personal right or liberty and a claim that authorized government action fails to go far enough. In the latter case, there would be no logical limitation on the State's duties to provide services if a court were to conclude that such duties conferred personal liberty interests and apply strict scrutiny analysis. [66] [24] Moreover, a state constitutional provision is not elevated to a fundamental right solely because it mandates legislative action. [67] For example, the Nebraska Constitution also requires the Legislature to provide for the organization of townships [68] and corporations. [69] Yet these provisions do not create fundamental rights. [70] Other courts have pointed out the vulnerability of the Rodriguez test in considering property rights. [71] Although the right to acquire and hold property is an interest protected by the federal and state Constitutions,  that right is not a likely candidate for such preferred treatment.' [72] We also agree that no distinction exists upon which to elevate the funding of education to a fundamental interest over the funding of other vital state services: services that are also provided through the state's political subdivisions created under constitutional provisions. Considering the potential reach of Rodriguez, courts have concluded that other state services could, within the Rodriguez formulation of fundamental rights, be deemed implicitly guaranteed in most state constitutions. [73] Even more illuminating, the Rodriguez court recognized the potential fallout of applying strict scrutiny to school funding decisions. In such a complex arena in which no perfect alternatives exist, the Court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of scrutiny lest all local fiscal schemes become subjects of criticism under the Equal Protection Clause. [74] Because the Nebraska Constitution is not an enumeration of limited powers, [75] we conclude that it would be inappropriate to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's test in Rodriguez to our constitution.