Opinion ID: 2077353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: gould v. orr

Text: Alternatively, the Coalition argues that in Gould v. Orr, [26] we implicitly concluded that inadequate school funding is a justiciable issue. The Coalition's argument regarding Gould is twofold. First, they contend that the Gould court's exercise of jurisdiction shows this court considered the school funding issue to be justiciable because justiciability raises subject matter jurisdiction. Second, the Coalition contends the Gould court indicated a claim of inadequate funding that adversely affected a school district would state a cause of action under the Nebraska Constitution. We agree that the Gould court exercised jurisdiction. But, there is a significant difference between determining whether a. . . court has `jurisdiction of the subject matter' and determining whether a cause over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction is `justiciable.' [27] In Baker v. Carr, [28] the U.S. Supreme Court explained the distinction between lack of federal jurisdiction and inappropriateness of the subject matter for judicial consideration: In the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded. In the instance of lack of jurisdiction the cause either does not arise under the Federal Constitution, laws or treaties . . . or is not a case or controversy . . . or the cause is not one described by any jurisdictional statute. Unlike the standing doctrine of justiciability, [29] the political question doctrine is not entangled with subject matter jurisdiction. [30] Thus, by exercising jurisdiction in Gould, the court did not implicitly conclude that the claim was justiciable. We also disagree with the Coalition's contention that the Gould court recognized a cause of action for inadequate school funding. Like the Coalition, the plaintiffs in Gould also argued that the present statutory structure for funding public schools in Nebraska is unconstitutional and inadequate. [31] The district court granted summary judgment for the State. On appeal, the Gould majority concluded that the trial court committed plain error in failing to sustain the State's demurrer because the plaintiffs had not stated a cause of action: Appellants' petition clearly claims there is disparity in funding among school districts, but does not specifically allege any assertion that such disparity in funding is inadequate and results in inadequate schooling. While appellants' petition is replete with examples of disparity among the various school districts in Nebraska, they fail to allege in their petition how these disparities affect the quality of education the students are receiving. In other words, although appellants' petition alleges the system of funding is unequal, there is no demonstration that the education each student is receiving does not meet constitutional requirements. [32] But the majority also determined that there appeared no reasonable possibility that the defect could be remedied and remanded the cause with directions for the district court to dismiss. [33] Contrary to the Coalition's position, the Gould majority's conclusion that the plaintiffs could not amend their petition to state a cause of action indicates that it probably determined the claim presented a nonjusticiable issue. However, the majority did not state the reason for its holding. And unlike the plaintiffs in Gould, the Coalition argues that the religious freedom clause imposes a qualitative component on the Legislature's duty to provide free instruction. Thus, we do not interpret Gould to decide this issue in favor of either party. Arguably, our decision in State ex rel. Shineman could be extended to apply to this case. However, State ex rel. Shineman was limited to the right of 5-year-olds to kindergarten, rather than a right to an adequate education that implicates the entire school funding system. Thus, we look for further guidance in the criteria relied on by the district court. The district court relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court's tests in Baker v. Carr, [34] for determining whether an issue presents a nonjusticiable political question. Although we have implicitly recognized the political question doctrine, [35] we have not previously adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's justiciability tests under that doctrine, which we do now. We begin, however, with an overview of our separation of powers jurisprudence and an explanation of the political question doctrine.