What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on Leandro?
The NC Supreme Court in a 4-3 judgement dismissed the Leandro case and scrapped efforts to compel the state to fund a multi-billion-dollar remedial plan to improve schools. The plan included proposals to raise teacher pay and increase recruitment, implement a funding system that prioritizes schools with greater need, and provide more support to low-performing schools.
Decades long litigation has established that NC needs to provide all its students with “sound, basic education”. However, with this ruling, the court passes the responsibility back to the legislature and leaves open the question of when the judiciary will step in to enforce constitutional rights in the absence of legislative action.
Why was it dismissed
The case was dismissed based on a technical rationale from the Court majority: the original complaint related to only a handful of school districts, and was never amended to be a statewide, comprehensive complaint. The dissent disputed the accuracy of the majority’s position.
While framed in procedural terms, the dismissal of this case leaves substantive concerns about unequal access to education unaddressed, raising concern that the Court declined to address issues of profound social and constitutional significance.
Why is this significant for people with disabilities and advocates?
- It risks deepening inequalities for students from marginalized communities, including students with disabilities, who are disproportionally impacted by under-resourced schools.
- For students with disabilities, inadequate funding means fewer services, reduced supports, and barriers to accessing education on equal terms.
- Without adequate funding that ensures access, “sound, basic education” guaranteed by NC threatens to become an empty promise.
- It also shapes future advocacy strategies, including how education rights claims may need to be framed and pursued going forward.
- While this ruling emphasizes the role of the legislature, it does not account for the lack of comprehensive remedial measures from the legislature or resolve the broader legal debate about when courts can require the GA to spend funds or uphold constitutional rights.