Court Opinion

ID: 9752605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:20:15.995773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:19.013783
License: Public Domain

Justice ALBIN,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s Order, which denies plaintiffs’ motion in aid of litigants’ rights without prejudice to their right to renew their motion at a later time. Although I agree that plaintiffs’ *453motion is premature, I write to add a little historical context to the present matter.
In 2005, plaintiffs sought “a remedial order from the Court in respect of funding for school construction in the Abbott districts.” Abbott v. Burke, 185 N.J. 612, 613, 889 A.2d 1063 (2005) (Abbott XIV)- In an Order dated December 19, 2005, while denying the relief requested by plaintiffs, we ordered the Department of Education to meet certain deadlines for the filing of annual reports “to ensure a predictable and uniform manner by whieh all parties are provided the requisite information needed to assess the progress of the school facilities construction and the need for further appropriations.” Id. at 615, 889 A.2d 1063. In that Order, we
acknowledged that the State ha[d] made a substantial effort to improve school facilities conditions in the Abbott districts, but that significant deficiencies in this area persist and are likely to worsen at a severe cost to the State’s most disadvantaged school children if there is further delay in addressing the dilapidated, overcrowded, and dangerous schools in the Abbott districts.
[Id. at 614, 889 A.2d 1063.]
In 2007, plaintiffs returned to the Court seeking the same relief that they pursued in Abbott XIV. Abbott v. Burke, 193 N.J. 34, 35, 935 A.2d 1152 (2007) (Abbott XVII). On May 24, 2007, because the Fiscal Year 2008 budget had yet to be enacted, by Order, we “declined to proceed on the assumption that [defendants would] fail to comply with their constitutional obligations to provide a thorough and efficient educational system pursuant to Article VIII, § 4, ¶ 1.” Ibid. The Legislature did not authorize funding in Fiscal Year 2008 for resuming the construction and repair of facility projects in the Abbott districts.
In the present application, Abbott district superintendents submitted certifications describing severe overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and unsafe conditions in Abbott district schools that they claim threaten the health and safety of their students and staff and make it difficult to meet the requirements of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. The factual assertions in those certifications have not been contested by defendants.
*454With that history in mind, and without prejudging the merits raised in plaintiffs’ motion, I will not presume that the Legislature will fail to respond to the Governor’s request to fund the “next phase of school construction, including addressing needed health and safety concerns” in the Abbott districts, and therefore I join in denying plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.
For denying — Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO, and HOENS — 6.
Opposed — None.