Court Opinion

ID: 9930769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:06:02.133211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:22.516737
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                        No. 113,267

                LUKE GANNON, by his Next Friends and Guardians, et al.,
                                    Appellees,

                                             v.

                                     STATE OF KANSAS,
                                        Appellant.

                                          ORDER

       The court notes Kansas Solicitor General Anthony Powell's entry of appearance as
counsel for State of Kansas.

       In Gannon v. State, 309 Kan. 1185, 443 P.3d 294 (2019) (Gannon VII), the court
retained jurisdiction to ensure continued legislative compliance with the school funding
requirements of article 6, § 6(b) of the Kansas Constitution as mandated in Gannon v.
State, 308 Kan. 372, 420 P.3d 477 (2018) (Gannon VI). In 2019 House Substitute for
Senate Bill 16 (S.B. 16), the Legislature scheduled a series of incremental increases to the
base aid for student excellence (BASE) culminating in school year 2022-2023. The court
retained jurisdiction to ensure the State's implementation of the phased-in financial
solution in S.B. 16, which solution the court accepted in Gannon VI.

       The State now asks the court to issue the mandate, noting that the BASE increases
have been implemented. The plaintiffs acknowledge the BASE increases and the
Legislature's appropriation of funding for both school years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025
using the approved formula, but they argue no one can know whether these amounts are
sufficient. Given the court's stated purpose was to retain jurisdiction to ensure
implementation of the phased-in amounts and that has occurred, a majority of the court

                                              1
grants the State's motion. The court directs the Clerk of the Appellate Courts to issue the
mandate instanter.

       Justice Rosen dissents. Given the legislative history of school funding, Justice
Rosen would deny the State's motion and continue to withhold the mandate.

       The court notes the plaintiffs' response to the State's motion and the State's reply
thereto.

       The court denies Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's application to file a brief amicus
curiae under Supreme Court Rule 6.06 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 38). The court does not
currently permit the filing of a brief by an amicus curiae when, as here, the court has not
invited the parties to submit briefs on a motion. See Supreme Court Rule 5.01 (2023 Kan.
S. Ct. R. at 31) (generally governing appellate motions practice).

       The court directs that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports.

       STEGALL, J., not participating.

       Dated this 6th day of February 2024.

                                              2