Right to adequate schools at risk for Alabama’s children
June 2, 2001
Plaintiff schoolchildren and school boards in ACE v. Siegelman, the education adequacy and equity litigation, have filed papers with the Alabama Supreme Court urging the court to respect the boundaries of its own jurisdiction and turn back from a course of action that singles them out for treatment unlike the court’s treatment of any other individuals or groups. The brief, submitted to the court by mail on Feb. 14, was filed in response to orders issued by the court on Jan. 10 of this year. In issuing that order, the court acted on its own. No party to the litigation asked the court to take action.
A majority of the State Supreme Court, through their Jan. 10 order, has exceeded its authority by treating the Liability Order in the case -- an order that became final close to nine years ago -- as if it was never finalized. The majority of the court has taken this action even though the Liability Order was finalized in 1993, the time for appeal ran out that year without an appeal being filed, and the State Supreme Court itself has declared the Liability Order to be final and no longer subject to review on four separate occasions – twice in 1995 and twice in 1997. The Jan. 10 order of the State Supreme Court makes clear the intent of the majority to examine all issues addressed and resolved by the Liability Order even if doing so means they have to trespass well beyond the bounds of their authority.
The Liability Order was issued by the Montgomery County Circuit Court in March 1993. The order 1) established that public schoolchildren in Alabama have a right to equitable and adequate educational opportunities 2) found that the state had violated those rights and 3) ordered the state to establish and maintain schools that provide such opportunities.
Only one thing has changed since the four findings by the State Supreme Court that the Liability Order is no longer subject to review: the makeup of the court. The conclusion that the majority of the current court is appropriating to itself jurisdiction the court actually lost years ago is inescapable. The schoolchildren and school systems seeking to vindicate their legal and constitutional rights through ACE v. Siegelman are the only parties ever to be treated this way by the appellate courts of this state. However, the conduct of the majority of this court is not only unparalleled in Alabama, it also violates well-established principles of American jurisprudence. It is no wonder then that Justice Woodall, in his dissent from the majority, described the majority’s action as constituting a “raw abuse of power.”
In addition to its wholly arbitrary handling of the Liability Order, the majority of the State Supreme Court has treated another ruling in the case finalized years ago as if it is not final. The Circuit Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of Amendment 111, Section 256 of the State Constitution was finalized in August 1991. This ruling, also, was not appealed.
As a mountain of evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated, Amendment 111, adopted in 1956, was inspired purely by racial bigotry. Its sole and express purpose was to obstruct desegregation by declaring that Alabama’s schoolchildren do not have a right to an education. In 1991 the Montgomery County Circuit Court put an end at last to this shameful period in Alabama history by striking down Amendment 111, Section 256 as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Now, over a decade later, the majority of the State Supreme Court, acting completely on its own, has violated established principles regarding finality and appropriated to itself the authority to question this landmark ruling by the lower court.
In 1993 an Alabama court declared that Alabama’s public schoolchildren have a right to equitable and adequate educational opportunities. That declaration was based on Alabama law, the Alabama Constitution and the U. S. Constitution. The ruling setting forth those rights was properly finalized and cannot now be the subject of legitimate review. The plaintiff children, their parents and local school boards urge the State Supreme Court to respect the rights established in ACE v. Siegelman and their right to continue to seek the state’s compliance with the requirements of the Liability Order through the Alabama courts.
###