Trial News

After students filed suit alleging the deplorable conditions at their schools deprived them of an adequate education, the Sixth Circuit broke new ground by recognizing a constitutional right to an education. In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause guarantees a right to a “basic minimum education” that provides “access to literacy.” Literacy, the court reasoned, is key to citizens exercising their fundamental rights, including the right to participate in democracy. (Gary B. v. Whitmer, 2020 WL 1951894 (6th Cir. Apr. 23, 2020).)

In 2016, a group of Detroit public school students sued several Michigan state officials in federal district court, alleging that the officials’ actions had deprived them of a basic minimum education. The state officials had intervened in the management of several underperforming schools to address shortcomings from the late 1990s until the time the lawsuit was filed, but school conditions remained deplorable, and student proficiency rates were near or at 0%. The plaintiffs’ complaint described a lack of qualified teachers—hundreds of vacant teaching positions at the start of a school year and substantial teacher absences—resulting in classes being taught by noncertified paraprofessionals, substitutes, teachers without the requisite subject matter expertise, and even a fellow student in one instance. Classes were often combined on short notice due to teacher vacancies, with up to 60 students in one classroom. The plaintiffs also alleged there was a lack of adequate curricula that could “plausibly impart literacy,” such as teacher lesson plans and textbooks. In addition, the students alleged the school facilities were unhealthy and unsafe, with inadequate temperature control, vermin infestations, mold, filthy restrooms with plumbing issues, and an insufficient number of desks and chairs.

The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that their schools’ conditions violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The students also alleged due process violations: State officials denied them of their right to a basic minimum education and, in requiring them to attend substandard schools with unsafe facilities, unjustly restricted their freedom of movement. The district court rejected these claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded their equal protection and compulsory attendance due process claims and that “education is not a fundamental right.”

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court about the equal protection and compulsory education due process claims but found support for a constitutional right to a basic minimum education that provides access to literacy. The appellate court first noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has discussed but never decided whether the Constitution guarantees a basic education. But looking to high court cases where a right to education was discussed, as well as the Court’s due process framework, the Sixth Circuit found that the Constitution provides for a fundamental right to a basic minimum education.

The court first looked to the Supreme Court’s two-pronged test for determining whether a right is fundamental under the due process clause: whether the right is “deeply rooted in this [n]ation’s history and tradition” and whether the right is “‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’” (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).) Using this test, the court concluded that basic education is a fundamental right because “without the literacy provided by a basic minimum education, it is impossible to participate in our democracy.” The court added that “[a]ccess 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.’”

The Sixth Circuit then looked to Supreme Court’s educational jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court has found that “no broad, general right to education” exists, it has left open the question of whether a right to a “minimum education” exists. (San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).). The Court also has recognized 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.” (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).) Based on that, the Sixth Circuit held that a right to education exists, but that it is narrow and encompasses only those skills that are essential for participation in the political system. The court was clear that the right it recognized did not guarantee the type of education that most Americans expect but merely a “foundational level of literacy.”

Evan Caminker, a Michigan Law professor and cocounsel for the plaintiffs, called the Sixth Circuit’s decision “groundbreaking” because the court was “the first to recognize a right of access to literacy.” He hopes “the decision will help shine a light on the horrible conditions to which the plaintiff schoolchildren are subject on a daily basis. We're not asking for equality of spending, or equality of outcomes, or equality of anything. We’re not asking for everybody to have a Cadillac. We’re asking for everyone to have access to more than Fred Flintstones’ car. As the court noted, we allege that ‘a group of children is relegated to a school system that does not provide even a plausible chance to attain literacy.’ Hopefully this ruling will remedy such an embarrassment.”

Michelle Adams, a professor at Cardozo School of Law whose research centers on race discrimination, school desegregation, and affirmative action, agreed, calling the case “tremendously important for the children of Detroit and for equal justice under law.”

On May 14, the parties announced that the state of Michigan would pay $2.72 million to the Detroit Public School Community District to fund literacy-related supports and $280,000 to be shared among the plaintiffs. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also agreed to propose legislation that would provide the district with at least $94.4 million in funding for literacy programs.

Caminker called the settlement “an important start” but said it “doesn’t fully address the abysmal conditions of some of Detroit’s public schools. It affirms that solving this educational crisis is a high priority over the next few years, and strengthens local efforts to work with state officials to figure out how best to provide access to literacy. We hope it serves as a catalyst for state officials to ‘see’ the problem more clearly and to encourage students, teachers, parents, and local communities to persevere in the fight for the students’ rights.”  

Please set a Datasource.