A half-century ago, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the Supreme Court struck down racially segregated schools, concluding that “equal protection” demands that states provide students with education on equal terms. While Brown focused attention on inequities caused by racial segregation of schools, it also implicitly raised questions about inequities in the way states fund public education. Since 1954, the constitutional commitment to “equal educational opportunity” has been the law of the land. In 1971, however, the Supreme Court in San Antonio v. Rodriguez, determined that education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, thereby leaving in place Texas’s grossly inequitable school funding system. The decision in Rodriguez dealt a severe blow to the movement for equal educational opportunity and paved the way for states to continue inequities in their education-funding systems. This follow-up collection in the Nebraska Law Review is intended to further illuminate the field of school finance policy and law by presenting the stories of five lawyers who have handled these important cases in recent years. These short and “nontraditional” articles present a unique and candid “behind-the-scenes” look at what is involved in litigating a school finance case.
Gregory C. Malhoit,
Fulfilling the Promise of Brown: The Experiences of Lawyers Challenging State School-Funding Systems,
83 Neb. L. Rev.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol83/iss3/6