Document: 523 U.S. 296118 S.Ct. 1257140 L.Ed.2d 406 TEXAS, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES et al. No. 97-29. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 14, 1998. Decided March 31, Syllabus * In 1995, Texas Legislature enacted a comprehensive scheme (Chapter 39) that holds local school boards accountable to State for student achievement in public schools. When district falls short Chapter 39's accreditation criteria, Commissioner Education may select from 10 possible sanctions, including appointment master oversee district's operations, Tex. Educ.Code Ann. §39.131(a)(7), or management team direct operations areas unacceptable performance require contracting out services, §39.131(a)(8). Texas, covered jurisdiction under §5 Voting Rights Act 1965, submitted 39 Attorney General determination whether any sanctions affected voting and thus required preclearance. While Assistant Civil did not object §§39.131(a)(7) (8), he cautioned certain circumstances their implementation might result violation. subsequently filed complaint District Court, seeking declaration does apply (8) sanctions. The court reach merits case because it concluded Texas's claim was ripe. Held: is ripe adjudication. A resting upon ""contingent future events occur as anticipated, indeed at all,''' fit Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 568, 581, 105 3325, 3333, 87 409. Whether problem presents will ever need solving too speculative. appoint only after below state standards has tried other, less intrusive pointed which application §39.131(a)(7) currently foreseen even likely. Even if there were greater certainty regarding implementation, would be legal issues raises are yet judicial decision hardship withholding consideration until chooses implement one insubstantial. See Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 149, 1507, 1515-1516, 18 681. Pp. ____-____. Affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Javier Aguilar, Austin, TX, appellant. Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Washington, DC, appellees. Justice SCALIA 1 Appellant, appeals judgment three-judge Columbia. had sought declaratory preclearance provisions 79 Stat. 439, amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, do sections Code permit sanction districts failure meet state-mandated educational levels. This appeal question controversy 2 both government responsible There more than 1,000 districts, each run by an elected board. achievement. §§39.021-39.131 (1996). contains detailed prescriptions assessment academic skills, development indicators, status imposition It seeks measure schoolchildren, reward schools achieve legislative goals, those fall short. 3 fails satisfy State's listed ascending order severity. §§39.131(a)(1)-(10). Those include, "to extent [C]ommissioner determines necessary,'' §39.131(a), appointing contract services another person, appoints masters teams, "shall clearly define the[ir] powers duties'' shall review them every 90 days. §39.131(e). approve disapprove action taken principal, superintendent, board trustees, also act. §§39.131(e)(1), (2). law prohibits teams taking concerning election, changing number members on method selecting setting tax rate district, adopting budget establishes different level spending set §§39.131(e)(3)-(6). 4 see 28 CFR pt. 51, App. (1997), consequently, before can changes affecting must obtain Columbia States. §1973c. administrative General* requested further information, criteria used special description duties, difference between duties boards. responded pointing limits placed §39.131(e), noting actual authority granted "is time depending needs district.'' Juris. Statement 99a. After receiving this first six affect therefore He insofar "enabling nature,'' but "under foreseeable violation Section 5'' Id., 36a. 5 On June 7, 1996, Columbia, authorized (1) they with respect voting, (2) consistent conditions attached grants federal financial assistance authorize insure accountability education authorities. these arguments We noted probable jurisdiction. 521 ----, 118 29, 138 1059 (1997). II 6 adjudication rests all.''' 409 (1985) (quoting 13A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice Procedure §3532, p. 112 (1984)). contingent factors. First, standards. Then, pursuant policy, try "the include team,'' (Original Complaint ¶12). may, example, "order preparation improvement plan . , submission approval, plan,'' §39.131(a)(3), "appoint agency monitor participate report activities trustees superintendent,'' §39.131(a)(6). options fail team, Tr. Oral Arg. 16, then, §39.131(a). particular Indeed, hopes no district. 16-17. Under circumstances, where "we have idea when such [a sanction] ordered,'' issue Toilet Goods Assn., Inc. 158, 163, 1520, 1524, 697 (1967); Renne Geary, 501 312, 321-322, 111 2331, 2338-2339, 115 288 (1991). 7 ultimate paragraphs (a)(7) (a)(8) statute, we think Ripeness "requir[es] us evaluate fitness parties consideration.'' 1515, 681 (1967). As issues: asks hold constitute change voting. sufficient confidence our imagination affirm negative. operation statute better grasped viewed light application. Here, often true, " [d]etermination scope legislation advance its immediate adverse effect context concrete involves remote abstract inquiry proper exercise function.'' Longshoremen Boyd, 347 222, 224, 74 447, 448, 98 L.Ed. 650 (1954). present case, remoteness abstraction increased fact interpreted courts. Thus, [p]ostponing questions presented, arises, advantage permitting courts opportunity construe'' provisions. Renne, U.S., 323, S.Ct., 2339-2340. 8 And parties: like 152, 1517, (1967), regulation "direct day-to-day business'' plaintiffs, compelled affix labelling products threat criminal sanction. engage in, refrain from, conduct, unless noncleared remedies. To sure, contingency should arise compliance procedure could delay much needed action. (Prior litigation, Dallas County despite request expedition took days give approval. Brief Petitioner 37, n. 28.) But inconvenience avoidable. If confident simply go ahead appointment. Should private individual bring suit (and matter clear, distance, thinks is), reason doubt deny preliminary injunction. Presley Etowah Comm'n, 502 491, 506, 820, 830, 117 51 (1992); City Lockhart States, 460 125, 129, 3, 103 998, 1001, 863 (1983). claims suffers "threat federalism.'' abstraction-and graver personal freedom'' exists whenever promulgated, inadequate support person's primary conduct affected. Cf. 164, 1524-1525. 9 sum, find speculative solving; consideration, biding Accordingly, agree affirmed. 11 so ordered. syllabus constitutes part been prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. determinations delegated Division. §51.3

Category: 8