Opinion ID: 4528343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Compulsory Attendance Claim

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that the district court erred by considering their due process claim only through the lens of a fundamental right, since their complaint also raises a “negative rights” argument. (Pls.’ Br. at 36–43.) Under this theory, Plaintiffs argue that a central element of their due process rights—the right to freedom of movement and freedom from state custody—is restricted by the state’s compulsory education law, which forces them to attend their schools. While this restraint would be allowed if the state, in return, provided them with an adequate education, Plaintiffs argue that by detaining them at “schools in name only,” the state has failed to meet this burden, rendering the detention arbitrary and violating their substantive due process rights. (Id.) The district court declined to address this theory, saying that Plaintiffs’ complaint “points exclusively to a positive-right argument.” Gary B., 329 F. Supp. 3d at 364. The legal theory behind this claim appears to have strong support in the law. It seems beyond debate that confining students to a “school” that provides no education at all would be an arbitrary detention, prohibited by the common law’s understanding of due process tracing back to the Magna Carta. See, e.g., Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 861 (2018) (Breyer, J., Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 28 dissenting). But as things presently stand, the district court was correct to dismiss this claim: Plaintiffs’ complaint does not provide notice that they were pursuing a claim based on Michigan’s compulsory attendance requirement and fails to allege sufficient facts for the Court to address its plausibility. We address both the governing law and Plaintiffs’ complaint below. 1. Substantive Due Process and Compulsory Attendance The main case Plaintiffs rely on to support their compulsory attendance theory is Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In Youngberg, a thirty-three-year-old man with severe intellectual disability was deemed unable to care for himself and involuntarily committed to a state facility. Id. at 309–10. After a series of injuries and physical restraints imposed during his commitment, Romeo sued under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that that the state failed to protect his liberty interests in “safety, freedom of movement, and training within the institution.” Id. at 310–11, 314–15. First discussing his safety claim, the Court “noted that the right to personal security constitutes a ‘historic liberty interest’ protected substantively by the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 315 (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673 (1977)). Similarly, the Court found that “[l]iberty from bodily restraint always has been recognized as the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action.” Id. at 316 (alteration in original) (quoting Greenholtz v. Neb. Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 18 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). Romeo’s last claim proved to be more complicated. He conceded that, because of the severity of his disability, no amount of training would make it possible for him to be released. Id. at 317. That said, Romeo still argued he was entitled to training that would reduce his aggression, thereby increasing his safety and decreasing the need for restraint within the facility. Id. at 317–18. In addressing his claims, the Court noted that while Romeo retained “liberty interests in safety and freedom from bodily restraint,” these interests were not absolute. Id. at 319–20. For example, the facility would be entitled to restrain the movement of residents to protect their safety and the safety of others. Id. at 320. “The question then is not simply whether a liberty Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 29 interest has been infringed but whether the extent or nature of the restraint . . . is such as to violate due process.” Id. In answering this question, the Court balances “the individual’s interest in liberty against the State’s asserted reasons for restraining individual liberty.” Id. Applying this principle to Romeo’s claim, the Court held that he was entitled to improved safety, lesser restraint, and appropriate training, but that in shaping this remedy on remand, the trial court should afford significant deference to the professionals responsible for Romeo’s care. Id. at 321–25. Other cases indicate that this balancing principle is the crux of any due process analysis where the state restrains core liberty interests like freedom of movement. For example, in Cruzan—a case about the right to refuse life-saving medical care—the Supreme Court reiterated that “whether [a plaintiff’s] constitutional rights have been violated must be determined by balancing his liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Cruzan ex rel. Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 279 (1990) (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321). United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750–51 (1987), similarly observed this balancing principle, finding that while individuals have a “strong interest in liberty[,] . . . this right may, in circumstances where the government’s interest is sufficiently weighty, be subordinated to the greater needs of society.” And in Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), the Court held that “[d]ue process requires that the nature of [a] commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed,” id. at 79; see also Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972) (“At the least, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.”). While the degree of deprivation is obviously greatest in a case like involuntary commitment, there is no reason why this balancing principle should not apply to less-extensive restraints as well. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 319–21. Compulsory school attendance laws are a restraint on Plaintiffs’ freedom of movement, and thus implicate the core protections of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Foucha, 504 U.S. at 80; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 316. If the state required a group of people to sit in a building for several hours a day without any justification, such a restraint would clearly offend their right to liberty. See, e.g., Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263, 276–77 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Demore v. Kim, Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 30 538 U.S. 510, 531–33 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring)) (noting that the Due Process Clause prohibits arbitrary deprivations of liberty), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings, 138 S. Ct. 830; see also, e.g., Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 861 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“The Due Process Clause—itself reflecting the language of the Magna Carta—prevents arbitrary detention.”); Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 315 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (same); cf. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402 (1923) (“In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. . . . [But] it hardly will be affirmed that any Legislature [in our country today] could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.”). And so, if compulsory school attendance is constitutional, it must be because the relevant state interest outweighs any deprivation of liberty. On the other hand, while never directly addressing this issue, the Supreme Court has recognized that, given the important governmental interest in educating its citizens, the state generally has the power to compel attendance at school. E.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534 (1925); Meyer, 262 U.S. at 402. Given this repeated dictum, it seems clear that in most cases, a state-provided education will justify the deprivation of liberty caused by compulsory attendance. Taken together, it is clear from these cases that, at least for compulsory education in a general sense (which is the only type of schooling that the complaint concerns), there is some level of education that justifies whatever deprivation of liberty is caused by a mandatory attendance or schooling requirement. See, e.g., Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 402. But at the same time, forcing students to attend a “school” in which they are simply warehoused and provided no education at all would run afoul of the Due Process Clause’s protections.12 12 The dissent suggests that Youngberg categorically does not apply to claims based on compulsory attendance laws. But the cases it relies on all concern the state’s failure to protect a student within the school environment from private harms like third-party violence or medical conditions, not whether the state’s mandatory attendance requirement was itself permissible in the first place. See Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger County, 819 F.3d 834, 840 (6th Cir. 2016); Sargi v. Kent City Bd. of Educ., 70 F.3d 907, 910 (6th Cir. 1995). There is a difference between the custody exception to DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 198–200 (1989), which concerns whether the state has a duty to protect an individual in its custody against private Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 31 Such a deprivation would bear no reasonable relationship to the state’s asserted purpose, see, e.g., Foucha, 504 U.S. at 79, and thus would be outweighed by the individual’s interest in liberty, see, e.g., Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 279; Salerno, 481 U.S. at 750–51; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320. For cases in the middle, the question is whether the state’s interest—here, the education it provides—is enough to justify the restraint. 2. Application to Plaintiffs’ Complaint While Plaintiffs’ negative-rights claim seems to have support in the law and was argued in their brief on appeal, it is noticeably absent from their complaint. The complaint certainly includes the statement that Michigan has compulsory school attendance (see, e.g., Compl., R. 1 at PageID #27 (“Michigan . . . compels children to attend school full time . . . .”); id. at #43 (same)), but there is no indication that Plaintiffs are alleging that this deprivation of liberty is unconstitutional. The closest Plaintiffs come to highlighting this claim is by saying that, since education “is required of every child,” there is “a special relationship between the state and children between the ages of 6 and 18.” (Id. at #42.) But Plaintiffs never expand this beyond noting the “special relationship,” and their only cause of action regarding due process puts it solely in terms of “the fundamental right of access to literacy,” and not any right to freedom from restraint. (Id. at #126–27.)13 Other than these two statements, Plaintiffs do not mention compulsory attendance anywhere else in their complaint or otherwise indicate that the requirement could play any role in a violation of their constitutional rights. To satisfy the federal rules, while a “short and plain statement of the claim” is enough, the complaint must still “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (alteration in original) (first quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); and then quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In this case, violence, and the question of whether the state’s restriction of a person’s liberty—custodial or otherwise—is itself allowed under the Due Process Clause. 13 In fact, the complaint’s discussion of compulsory education suggests it was included to show that education is seen as an essential state function, in support of Plaintiffs’ fundamental right theory. (See Compl., R. 1 at PageID #43 (“These compulsory attendance laws reflect a national judgment that education is so essential to the maintenance of democracy and the ability to participate in public and private life that compelling it is justified.”).) Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 32 Plaintiffs’ complaint gave no notice of their claim that Defendants violated their right to freedom of movement, or any other right through the compulsory attendance requirement. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are insufficient for us to assess the viability of this claim, because they fail to provide information about the extent or nature of the restraint on their liberty. Other than the broader allegations concerning the conditions of their schools, the only allegation relevant to this theory is that “Michigan’s compulsory attendance laws require Plaintiffs to attend [their] schools.” (Compl., R. 1 at PageID #4; accord, e.g., id. at #27, #42–43.) By Youngberg’s own terms, analyzing this claim requires balancing the extent of the deprivation against the education being provided by the state. See 457 U.S. at 320 (“In determining whether a substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated, it is necessary to balance ‘the liberty of the individual’ and ‘the demands of an organized society.’” (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting))). For such a claim to be viable outside a fundamental right to a basic minimum education, Plaintiffs would have to show that the degree of restraint imposed on them cannot be justified by whatever education, however negligible, they are receiving. While Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to infer the extent of the education they are being provided (or at least the extent it does not exceed), they provide inadequate information about the duration or nature of the restraint faced in their schools, such as the hours per day of compulsory attendance, the number of days per year, or the restrictions on Plaintiffs’ liberty throughout the typical school day. Without these allegations, it is impossible for us to conduct Youngberg balancing and “draw the reasonable inference that [Defendants are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As with their equal protection claim, after this case is remanded, Plaintiffs could seek leave to amend from the district court and attempt to correct these deficiencies. But as their complaint stands now, their allegations fail to provide sufficient notice of their claim, and are insufficient for the Court to assess its viability. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negative-rights claim was correctly dismissed. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 33 E. The Fundamental Right to a Basic Minimum Education Having addressed Plaintiffs’ two alternative claims for relief, we are left with the central issue in this appeal: whether Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to a basic minimum education, meaning one that provides access to literacy. Plaintiffs contend that access to literary, as opposed to other educational achievements, is a gateway milestone, one that unlocks the basic exercise of other fundamental rights, including the possibility of political participation. While the Supreme Court has repeatedly discussed this issue, it has never decided it, and the question of whether such a right exists remains open today. After employing the reasoning of these Supreme Court cases and applying the Court’s substantive due process framework, we recognize that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education. Access to a foundational level of literacy—provided through public education—has an extensive historical legacy and is so central to our political and social system as to be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21 (1997) (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325–26 (1937), overruled by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)). In short, without the literacy provided by a basic minimum education, it is impossible to participate in our democracy. Applying this right to Plaintiffs’ allegations, their complaint plausibly alleges that Defendants denied them a basic minimum education. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of this claim must be reversed. 1. Recognition of Fundamental Rights Under Substantive Due Process The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Clause is most commonly seen as guaranteeing procedural protections whenever the state attempts to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property interests—so-called procedural due process. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). But the Clause has also been read to recognize that certain interests are so substantial that no process is enough to allow the government to restrict them, at least absent a compelling state interest. E.g., Glucksberg, Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 34 521 U.S. at 719–21; Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846–47 (1992); Collins, 503 U.S. at 125. This substantive due process is the basis for Plaintiffs’ claim. “The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights,” which are deemed to be “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause. Casey, 505 U.S. at 847. But this is not the end of the Clause’s protections, which also extend to other rights and liberties recognized by the courts to be “fundamental.” E.g., Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720–21; Flores, 507 U.S. at 301–02. For example, in Meyer, the Court stated: While [the Supreme Court] has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed [by the Due Process Clause], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. 262 U.S. at 399. Despite the breadth of the Court’s statement in Meyer, later cases prescribe circumspection when deciding whether an asserted right is fundamental. “As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins, 503 U.S. at 125. But this reluctance is not the end of the matter: The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment. Its boundaries are not susceptible of expression as a simple rule. That does not mean we are free to invalidate state policy choices with which we disagree; yet neither does it permit us to shrink from the duties of our office. Casey, 505 U.S. at 849. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 35 Faced with this tension, the Supreme Court has developed a two-prong analysis it applies when determining whether an asserted right is fundamental. First, “the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720–21 (quoting Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion)). The Supreme Court has applied a holistic approach to this historical analysis, tracing the evolution of an asserted right through or even beyond the history of our country, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2593–97 (2015); Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 710–19. A few Justices have instead embraced a narrower version, however, looking to whether the right in question would have been recognized as a protected interest at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. E.g., Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2628 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Even if a specific iteration of a right lacks substantial historical roots, this alone is not enough to foreclose recognition under the Due Process Clause. As the Court noted in Casey, “[i]t is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, . . . to suppose that the Due Process Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. But such a view would be inconsistent with our law.” 505 U.S. at 847 (citation omitted); see also Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2598 (majority opinion) (“History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.” (citation omitted)). Thus, the second prong of the inquiry looks to whether the asserted right is “‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Palko, 302 U.S. at 325–26). While these prongs are sometimes tied together, see, e.g., Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2134 (2015) (plurality opinion), Obergefell made clear that this historical inquiry may illuminate even newly recognized injustices that reveal a fundamental right: The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 36 dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. 135 S. Ct. at 2598. 2. The Supreme Court’s Education Cases Beyond the general framework for assessing whether an asserted right is fundamental, the Supreme Court has also, in a series of cases, addressed the extent of constitutional rights with respect to state-provided education. Its education jurisprudence teaches several lessons. First, the Court has found that there is no broad, general right to education. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 33– 39; see also, e.g., Seal v. Morgan, 229 F.3d 567, 575 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 33–37). Second, while no general right to education exists, the Supreme Court has specifically distinguished and left open “whether a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285 (1986); see also Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 36–37. The Sixth Circuit also appears to have been silent on this issue. Third, education is, at minimum, highly important to “maintaining our basic institutions,” and so the denial of public education to a discrete group of students “must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 221–24, 230. And fourth, the Court has addressed the critical link between education and race discrimination in America. We discuss the Court’s relevant education cases in turn, beginning chronologically. First, the history of public education in this country, as with many things, is inextricably tied to race. See infra Part II.E.3.a. And so, while it did not directly concern substantive due process, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), is important in assessing whether any aspect of education amounts to a fundamental right. Brown of course examined whether racially segregated schools inherently violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 487–88. The Court found they did, holding that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” Id. at 495. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 37 During this equal protection discussion, the Court noted the critical importance of education: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. Id. at 493. As argued by the parties, this passage can be read two ways. On the one hand, if “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments” and is “required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities,” id., how could it not be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or otherwise fundamental to our social order? Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Palko, 302 U.S. at 325). On the other, how could the state be compelled to provide an education if education needs to be equal only “where the state has undertaken to provide it”? Brown, 347 U.S. at 493. Nearly twenty years after Brown, this question returned to the Supreme Court. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Texas’s public-school finance system, arguing that differences in funding across school districts denied them equal protection of the law. 411 U.S. at 4–6, 15–16. Texas employed a “dual approach” to school finance, a system to which both local school districts and the state contributed. Id. at 6–7. But local funding (via property taxes) rapidly outpaced what was provided by the state, meaning that variations in property values led to substantial disparities in available funds. Id. at 7–15. During the litigation, “Texas virtually concede[d]” that the system could not survive strict scrutiny, and so if the uneven funding of schools interfered with a fundamental constitutional right, it would have to be invalidated by the Court. Id. at 16–17. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 38 In assessing whether education was a fundamental right, the Court began by referencing Brown, noting the country’s “historic dedication to public education” and agreeing that “‘the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society’ cannot be doubted.” Id. at 29–30 (quoting Rodriguez v. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 337 F. Supp. 280, 283 (W.D. Tex. 1971), rev’d, 411 U.S. 1). Despite this, the Supreme Court found that education was not a fundamental right, saying that “the undisputed importance of education will not alone cause this Court to depart from the usual standard for reviewing a State’s social and economic legislation.” Id. at 35. In denying the plaintiffs’ claim, the Court specifically responded to their argument that “education is itself a fundamental personal right because it is essential to the effective exercise of First Amendment freedoms and to intelligent utilization of the right to vote.” Id. The Court found this argument lacking, as the plaintiffs’ claim to “effective” First Amendment speech and “intelligent utilization” of the ballot was tantamount to demanding a guarantee of “the most effective speech or the most informed electoral choice,” neither of which were protected by the Constitution. Id. at 35–36. The Court’s conclusion regarding this argument is especially notable: Even if it were conceded that some identifiable quantum of education is a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of either right, we have no indication that the present levels of educational expenditures in Texas provide an education that falls short. Whatever merit appellees’ argument might have if a State’s financing system occasioned an absolute denial of educational opportunities to any of its children, that argument provides no basis for finding an interference with fundamental rights where only relative differences in spending levels are involved and where—as is true in the present case—no charge fairly could be made that the system fails to provide each child with an opportunity to acquire the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and of full participation in the political process. Id. at 36–37. Thus, the Court never ruled on the right to such a basic minimum education, and as shown more explicitly in its later cases, saved the question for another day. Next is Plyler v. Doe. In Plyler, the plaintiffs—“undocumented school-age children” also living in Texas—sued to challenge policies that denied state-level funding and charged tuition for students “who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 39 States.” 457 U.S. at 205–06, 206 n.2. The question was whether these policies violated the Equal Protection Clause, and what level of scrutiny to use in that analysis. Id. at 216–18. Looking to the interaction between education and the Constitution, the Court reiterated the holding in Rodriguez, while also noting the heightened significance of education and the special constitutional considerations that follow: Public education is not a “right” granted to individuals by the Constitution. But neither is it merely some governmental “benefit” indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions, and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child, mark the distinction. . . . We have recognized “the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government,” and as the primary vehicle for transmitting “the values on which our society rests.” “[A]s . . . pointed out early in our history, . . . some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence.” . . . In addition, education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests. Id. at 221 (some alterations in original) (citations omitted) (first quoting School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring); then quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 (1979); and then quoting Yoder, 406 U.S. at 221). Invoking Brown, the Plyler Court also noted the distinct role of education as a social equalizer: In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. Id. at 221–22. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 40 Based on this reasoning, the Court found that the challenged provisions violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 223–30. The Court noted that the denial of a “basic education”—framed in the context of literacy—would have a substantial negative impact on both the children in question and society at large, and so any assessment of rationality must also account for these costs. Id. at 223–24. Thus, “[i]n light of these countervailing costs,” the challenged provisions could only be upheld if they “further[ed] some substantial goal of the State.” Id. at 224. Since the state’s proffered interests failed to meet this standard, the Court invalidated the Texas policy. Id. at 224–30. After Rodriguez and Plyler comes Papasan v. Allain. In Papasan, schoolchildren in counties originally held by the Chickasaw Nation received a reduced amount of state educational funding compared to other counties in Mississippi, and so they sued the governor and state officials in federal court. 478 U.S. at 268–74. While this might sound like a repeat of Rodriguez, their allegations contained a twist: while the Rodriguez plaintiffs did not claim a failure to provide them with “an opportunity to acquire . . . basic minimal skills,” 411 U.S. at 36–37, the Papasan plaintiffs did exactly that, arguing that the state’s funding scheme deprived them of a “minimally adequate level of education” and that their right to such an education was fundamental, 478 U.S. at 274, 285. In assessing this claim, the Court noted that, “[a]s Rodriguez and Plyler indicate, [the Supreme Court] has not yet definitively settled the question[] [of] whether a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right.” Id. at 285. But Papasan did not provide an answer. Instead, the Court found that, assuming such a right existed, the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts in support of their claim. Id. at 286. They did not allege that they were “not taught to read or write,” or that they did not receive “instruction on even the educational basics.” Id. In short, “they allege[d] no actual facts in support of their assertion that they have been deprived of a minimally adequate education.” Id. An answer on pleadings, sure, but not on constitutional law.14 14 A similar outcome was reached by the Fifth Circuit in School Board v. Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, 830 F.2d 563, 568 (5th Cir. 1987), which employed rational-basis review Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 41 Finally, the Court essentially repeated this non-answer in Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 452–56 (1988), a case that concerned a fee charged for use of the school bus. While the plaintiff there argued that those who could not afford the bus fee were deprived of “minimum access to education,” she still attended the school despite this fee, meaning her claim could not have been for actual deprivation of a basic minimum education, but rather that the fee made it harder for poor families to access the school than rich families. Id. at 458. The Court then proceeded to uphold the statute under rational-basis review, since wealth is not a protected class and there were alternative means by which students could still access the school. Id. at 458, 460–62, 465. In his dissent in Kadrmas, Justice Marshall noted that the Court had still not decided “whether a State constitutionally could deny a child access to a minimally adequate education.” Id. at 466 n.1 (Marshall, J., dissenting). This question—whether “a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right,” Papasan, 478 U.S. at 285—remains unanswered today. 3. Is Access to Literacy a Fundamental Right? With guidance but no answers from the education cases above, this Court must assess whether a basic minimum education—meaning one that plausibly provides access to literacy—is a fundamental right. Applying the substantive due process framework from Glucksberg and Obergefell, and looking to the reasoning of Rodriguez and Plyler, we conclude that the answer is yes. First, the history of public education in our country reveals a longstanding practice of free state-sponsored schools, which were ubiquitous at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption. Public schools are now universal in the United States, and Americans take it for granted that state-sponsored education will be provided for their children as of right. But in the face of this progress, the history of education in the United States also demonstrates a substantial relationship between access to education and access to economic and political power, one in which race-based restrictions on education have been used to subjugate African Americans and because “the record contain[ed] no evidence whatever that any Louisiana schoolchild was deprived of a minimally adequate education.” Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 42 other people of color. This racial history of education in America—and the efforts subsequently taken to confront it—reveals the importance earlier generations placed on education. Taken together, this history establishes that education has held paramount importance in American history and tradition, such that the denial of education has long been viewed as a particularly serious injustice. Second, the role of basic literacy education within our broader constitutional framework suggests it is essential to the exercise of other fundamental rights. Most significantly, every meaningful interaction between a citizen and the state is predicated on a minimum level of literacy, meaning that access to literacy is necessary to access our political process. Further, the unique role of public education as a source of opportunity separate from the means of a child’s parents creates a heightened social burden to provide at least a minimal education. Thus, the exclusion of a child from a meaningful education by no fault of her own should be viewed as especially suspect. In sum, the state provision of a basic minimum education has a longstanding presence in our history and tradition, and is essential to our concept of ordered constitutional liberty. Under the Supreme Court’s substantive due process cases, this suggests it should be recognized as a fundamental right. a. The Historical Prevalence and Significance of Education “We begin, as we do in all due process cases, by examining our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 710. This examination reveals that stateprovided education is ubiquitous throughout all but the earliest days of the United States, a historical fact that today leads its citizens to expect a basic public education as of right. Such an expectation demonstrates that the right to a basic minimum education is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” id. at 720–21 (quoting Moore, 431 U.S. at 503), supporting its recognition as a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court’s cases on education repeatedly discuss the historical prevalence and importance of state-provided education. For example, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the state noted that the essential nature of education was touted by Thomas Jefferson in the earliest days of our Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 43 history. 406 U.S. at 221. Meyer v. Nebraska similarly noted that “[t]he American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance,” pointing to the Northwest Ordinance’s prescription, in 1787, that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” 262 U.S. at 400. Similarly, Papasan extensively discussed the history of public-school land grants, which “stretche[d] back over 200 years” and predated the Constitution itself. 478 U.S. at 268–69. And outside the education context, when discussing the right to privacy in marriage, the Court compared marriage to other bulwark institutions of American society and democracy, calling it “older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) (emphasis added). This historical prevalence of education supports the view that it is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, even under an originalist view. See, e.g., Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2628 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (analyzing the fundamental right to marriage based on state policies “[w]hen the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868”); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 777 (2010) (same for the right to keep and bear arms). “An astonishing thirty-six out of thirty-seven states in 1868—an Article V, three-quarters consensus [i.e., well over the number of states needed to amend the Constitution]—imposed a duty in their constitutions on state government to provide a public-school education.” Steven G. Calabresi & Sarah E. Agudo, Individual Rights Under State Constitutions when the Fourteenth Amendment Was Ratified in 1868: What Rights Are Deeply Rooted in American History and Tradition?, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 7, 108 (2008). These states accounted for 92% of the population. Id. at 109. And near the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, Senator Charles Sumner argued that “[t]he New England system of common schools is part of the republican form of government as understood by the framers of the Constitution.” (Amicus Br. of ACLU of Mich. at 22 (quoting David Herbert Donald, Charles Sumner 426 (1996)).) Furthermore, this history should not be viewed as only a static point. The continued expansion of education through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment resulted in universal compulsory education by 1918, and it has continued to develop since. See Barry Friedman & Sara Solow, The Federal Right to an Adequate Education, 81 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 92, 127–32 Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 44 (2013). And while state-supported education may have a different cultural significance than marriage, see Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2593–94 (majority opinion) (framing the marriage right as the product of “untold references . . . in religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, and faiths”), it is certainly both so longstanding and uniform as to be taken for granted in twentyfirst-century America. Though focused on the equal protection context instead of due process, the words of Brown v. Board of Education are still instructive: “In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted . . . . We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.” 347 U.S. at 492–93. Such a view reveals state-sponsored (and even mandated) education as a ubiquitous feature of our country, provided as of right to the people. Based on this uniform presence, the people have come to expect and rely on this education—second perhaps only to the immediate family—in order to provide the basic skills needed for our children to participate as members of American society and democracy. Our nation’s history of racial discrimination further reveals the historical and lasting importance of education, and the significance of its modern ubiquity. Education, and particularly access to literacy, has long been viewed as a key to political power. Withholding that key, slaveholders and segregationists used the deprivation of education as a weapon, preventing African Americans from obtaining the political power needed to achieve liberty and equality. While most starkly displayed during the time of slavery, this history is one of evolution rather than paradigm shift, and so what began in the slave codes of the antebellum South transformed into separate-and-unequal education policies that persisted well after Brown v. Board of Education. In the beginning of our country’s history, teaching slaves to read was a crime. E.g., Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 387–88 (1978) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 311 n.10 (1966). These laws were widespread among Southern states, driven by a desire to prevent escapes or rebellion. (See, e.g., Amicus Br. of ACLU of Mich. at 18–19); see also, e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, 793 (C.C.D. Ky. 1866) (“[A law in Louisiana] not only forbids Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 45 any person teaching slaves to read or write, but it declares that any person using language in any public discourse from the bar, bench, stage, or pulpit, or any other place, or in any private conversation, or making use of any sign or actions having a tendency to produce discontent among the free colored population or insubordination among the slaves, or who shall be knowingly instrumental in bringing into the state any paper, book, or pamphlet having a like tendency, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment or death, at the discretion of the court.”); cf. Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission Act, Pub. L. No. 115-77, § 2(3), 131 Stat. 1251, 1251 (2017) (“Douglass continued to teach himself to read and write and taught other slaves to read despite risks including death.”). This trend continued through extrajudicial violence during the Reconstruction era. (See, e.g., Amicus Br. of ACLU of Mich. at 19–22.) During this period, “Klansmen targeted schoolteachers for violent retribution and Black parents who sent their children to school frequently ‘received visits from white men eager to reinforce the nuances of the established racial order.’” (Id. at 20 (quoting George C. Rable, But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction 97 (2007)).) And while the federal government responded through civil rights legislation and prosecutions, see, e.g., Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. at 785–86, 793–94; (Amicus Br. of ACLU of Mich. at 20–21), the end of Reconstruction heralded legislative and policy efforts designed to limit the education of African Americans, see Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 310–13, 311 n.10 (noting that Southern states “rapidly instituted racial segregation in their public schools” following the Civil War, and discussing the interplay between these efforts to restrict literacy and efforts to restrict the vote). While Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown, 347 U.S. 483, is perhaps the best-known case of the Supreme Court’s “separate but equal” doctrine, several other cases upheld segregation specifically with respect to American schools. For example, in Cumming v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, 544 (1899), the Court declined to intervene when a local school board closed a preexisting black high school and “used the funds in its hands to assist in maintaining a high school for white children without providing a similar school for colored children.” Similarly, the Court upheld the ability of states to force private schools to segregate themselves based on race. Berea Coll. v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45, 51–54, 58 (1908), Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 46 abrogated by Brown, 347 U.S. 483. And in Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 85–87 (1927), abrogated by Brown, 347 U.S. 483, the Court upheld the state’s decision to bar a Chinese American student from attending a white public high school. While Brown was handed down in 1954 and held that “[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” 347 U.S. at 495, segregation and unequal treatment in schools have persisted long after that decision. Despite the Supreme Court’s instruction for desegregation “with all deliberate speed,” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955), school segregation cases continued to reach the Court for decades, see, e.g., Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). There are two main takeaways from this history of racial discrimination in education, as well as from past interventions by the courts. First, access to literacy was viewed as a prerequisite to the exercise of political power, with a strong correlation between those who were viewed as equal citizens entitled to self-governance and those who were provided access to education by the state. Second, when faced with exclusion from public education, would-be students have repeatedly been forced to rely on the courts for relief. The denials of education seen in these cases and beyond are now universally accepted as serious injustices, ones that conflict with our core values as a nation. Furthermore, the substantial litigation devoted to addressing these exclusions reveals the unparalleled value assigned to literacy, which is viewed by our society as essential for students to obtain even a chance at political and economic opportunity. For all of these reasons, we find that the right to a basic minimum education—access to literacy—is so “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” as to meet the historical prong of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process test. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720–21 (quoting Moore, 431 U.S. at 503). b. Whether a Basic Minimum Education Is “Implicit in the Concept of Ordered Liberty” Beyond this look to our history, we must also assess whether an asserted right is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Palko, 302 U.S. at 325). Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 47 Put differently, this Court must “exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2598. As Plaintiffs note, individuals with low or no literacy are incomparably disadvantaged in their economic and social lives, see, e.g., Plyler, 457 U.S. at 222 (“Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life.”). Even Meyer indicated that the right “to acquire useful knowledge” was protected by the Due Process Clause. 262 U.S. at 399. But neither of these is enough to transform the right into one that is fundamental and thus guaranteed by the Constitution. See, e.g., Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 479 (1977) (“[T]he Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill.” (quoting Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972))). Rather, a basic minimum education—meaning one that plausibly provides access to literacy—is fundamental because it is necessary for even the most limited participation in our country’s democracy. The Supreme Court has recognized that basic literacy is foundational to our political process and society. In Yoder, the Court noted that “some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence.” 406 U.S. at 221. And while Rodriguez rejected a general right to education on the grounds that no one is guaranteed the most effective or intelligent political participation, 411 U.S. at 35–36, the right asserted by Plaintiffs in this case is far more fundamental. The degree of education they seek through this lawsuit—namely, access to basic literacy—is necessary for essentially any political participation. Effectively every interaction between a citizen and her government depends on literacy. Voting, taxes, the legal system, jury duty—all of these are predicated on the ability to read and comprehend written thoughts. Without literacy, how can someone understand and complete a voter registration form? Comply with a summons sent to them through the mail? Or afford a defendant due process when sitting as a juror in his case, especially if documents are used as evidence against him? Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 48 Even things like road signs and other posted rules, backed by the force of law, are inaccessible without a basic level of literacy. In this sense, access to literacy “is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities,” Brown, 347 U.S. at 493, as our government has placed it “at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order,” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2601; see also Steven G. Calabresi & Michael W. Perl, Originalism and Brown v. Board of Education, 2014 Mich. St. L. Rev. 429, 552 (“At a minimum, children must be taught to read so they can read the laws for themselves—a task that many of the Framers would have thought was fundamental.”). Access to literacy also “draws meaning from related rights,” further indicating that it must be protected. Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2590. “[T]he right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.” Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982) (plurality opinion) (emphasis omitted); see also Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 35 (“The ‘marketplace of ideas’ is an empty forum for those lacking basic communicative tools.”). In this sense, access to literacy is itself fundamental because it is essential to the enjoyment of these other fundamental rights, such as participation in the political process. See, e.g., Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966) (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561–62 (1964)). And “the political franchise” is perhaps the most fundamental of all such rights, because it is the central element of our democracy. Id. (quoting Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 370). While the Supreme Court in Rodriguez said that “the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental,” 411 U.S. at 30, this principle is stretched past its breaking point when the right in question is important because it is necessary to other, clearly fundamental rights, cf., e.g, id. at 35 n.78 (noting that there is a “protected right, implicit in our constitutional system, to participate in state elections on an equal basis with other qualified voters”). And this is not just a right deemed to be important, or even very important; rather, “[p]roviding public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 213. It is hard to see how this apex function could be fulfilled by a system that does not provide a reasonable opportunity to obtain literacy, the foundation necessary to the exercise of many other fundamental rights. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 49 Defendants argue that “[a]ccess to literacy is not so fundamental to ordered liberty and justice.” (Defs.’ Br. at 49.) To support this view, they note that “at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, public education that went beyond rudimentary local cooperation was nonexistent.” (Id. at 51–52 (citing Gary B., 329 F. Supp. 3d at 365–66).) According to Defendants, since the country existed at that time, how could “ordered society” require a stateprovided education? (Id.) Suffice it to say that the practices of the 1700s cannot be the benchmark for what a democratic society requires. “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2598. That states uniformly created entitlements to education in the years leading up to and soon after the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption reflects the identification of such an injustice, and demonstrates the people’s view that such a right is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Palko, 302 U.S. at 325); see also Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2598 (cautioning against “allowing the past alone to rule the present”).15 Beyond the fact that a basic minimum education is essential to participation in our political system, there is another reason why access to literacy is implicit in the ordered liberty of our nation. “[T]hat education is a means of achieving equality in our society” is a belief “that has persisted in this country since the days of Thomas Jefferson.” Hunnicutt v. Burge, 356 F. Supp. 1227, 1237 (M.D. Ga. 1973) (citing Godfrey Hodgson, Do Schools Make a Difference?, Atlantic, Mar. 1973, at 35). In this sense, education has historically been viewed as a “great equalizer”: regardless of the circumstances of a child’s birth, a minimum education provides some chance of success according to that child’s innate abilities. See, e.g., David Rhode et al., The Decline of the “Great Equalizer,” Atlantic, Dec. 19, 2012 (quoting Horace Mann, politician and education reformer, in 1848, and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, in 2011); Roslin Growe & Paula S. Montgomery, Educational Equity in America: Is Education the Great 15 As discussed above, see supra Part II.E.3.a, Defendants’ argument goes well beyond even the originalist views of Justice Alito in McDonald and Justice Scalia in his dissent to Obergefell. Defendants essentially propose looking back to the earliest days of our country to determine the maximum scope of the Due Process Clause, ignoring that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted nearly a century later. Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 50 Equalizer?, Prof. Educator, Spring 2003, at 23 (discussing Mann and the history of the “great equalizer” concept). As the Plyler Court noted, “education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. . . . [The] denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.” 457 U.S. at 221–22. And Brown further supports this view, finding that “[i]n these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” 347 U.S. at 493. This is especially true considering our history of segregated and unequal education based on race, a history that began for the express purpose of limiting African Americans’ political power. See supra Part II.E.3.a. The Supreme Court’s desegregation cases make clear that stateprovided public education is important not just to provide a shot at achievement in the face of inequalities of wealth and power, but specifically as a means of addressing past racial discrimination that restricted educational opportunities, and of course to maintain as best we can whatever equal opportunity has already been achieved. It may never be that each child born in this country has the same opportunity for success in life, without regard to the circumstances of her birth. But even so, the Constitution cannot permit those circumstances to foreclose all opportunity and deny a child literacy without regard to her potential. See Plyler, 457 U.S. 219–20 (“[I]mposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth . . . .” (second alteration in original) (quoting Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972))). Providing a basic minimum education is necessary to prevent such an arbitrary denial, and so is essential to our concept of ordered liberty. We hold, therefore, that the right to a basic minimum education—one that can plausibly impart literacy—is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Palko, 302 U.S. at 325). When combined with the historical analysis discussed above, Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 51 this means that access to such a basic minimum education is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. c. Some Arguments (and Responses) Against Recognizing a Fundamental Right Beyond Defendants’ arguments with respect to the Glucksberg/Obergefell due process framework, it is worth addressing two additional points they make against recognizing a fundamental right in this appeal. The first—raised in nearly every substantive due process case—is that the recognition of a “new” fundamental right is almost always improper, as it compromises the will of the people by exchanging the policy judgments of unelected judges for those of their elected representatives. The second, which is more specifically applicable here, is that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, and so (in most cases) only tells the government what it cannot do rather than what it must do. While neither of these arguments carries the day, they are repeated enough to warrant a separate discussion and response. i. Judicial Restraint Suggests Deference to the Political Process The classic argument against extending substantive due process is that recognition of a right as “fundamental” removes it from and so short-circuits the political process. See, e.g., Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2625 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance.”); see also, e.g., Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights & Fight for Equal. by Any Means Necessary (BAMN), 572 U.S. 291, 313 (2014) (plurality opinion) (“First Amendment dynamics would be disserved if this Court were to say that the question here at issue is beyond the capacity of the voters to debate and then to determine.”). Since the political branches are better equipped to address general social wrongs, the argument goes, the courts should not intervene by recognizing calcified and inflexible constitutional rights. See, e.g., Griswold, 381 U.S. at 482 (“We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions.”). Nos. 18-1855/1871 Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 52 But it is unsurprising that our political process, one in which participation is effectively predicated on literacy, would fail to address a lack of access to education that is endemic to a discrete population. The affected group—students and families of students without access to literacy—is especially vulnerable and faces a built-in disadvantage at seeking political recourse. The lack of literacy of which they complain is exactly what prevents them from obtaining a basic minimal education through the normal political process. This double bind provides increased justification for heightened judicial scrutiny and the recognition of the right as fundamental. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 28 (noting that heightened scrutiny is warranted when a class is “saddled with . . . disabilities” or is “relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process”); cf. Schuette, 572 U.S. at 334–35 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (discussing the Supreme Court’s “political process” equal protection cases).16 ii. The Due Process Clause Provides Only Negative, Not Positive Rights Another often-repeated argument raised by Defendants and the dissent is that the Fourteenth Amendment—which speaks in terms of deprivation or denial—does not provide positive, affirmative rights. The Due Process Clause says what the government cannot do, not what it must do, and so recognizing an obligation of the state to provide a basic minimum education would turn the language of the Clause “on its head.” (Defs.’ Br. at 43.) To be sure, several cases have reflected this view of the Clause. For example, in Jackson