How activist judges increase your taxes |
Featured Commentary

How activist judges increase your taxes


Judges can order states to spend more on education. But does it improve schools?

In 1977, writing in the Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. exhorted state judges to embrace activist interpretations of the law. The high court had taken a frustratingly conservative turn, Brennan noted. He encouraged state judges to find in state constitutions and laws language that would guarantee citizens “even more protections” than those provided by the U.S. Constitution.

We are still paying for Brennan’s exhortation today.

His essay helped inspire a “positive rights” revolution in state courts. Over the 37 years since Brennan’s appeal, a number of state high courts have aggressively used vague state constitutional language — referring, say, to the general welfare — to force legislators to spend billions of dollars on new entitlements, particularly in education.

Since the early 1980s, the country has seen a tide of “equity” funding lawsuits in which plaintiffs have sought extra state spending in poorer school districts to address funding gaps with wealthier areas. Soon, plaintiffs were arguing that states needed not only to ensure spending equity but also to provide an “adequate” education for all children, including those from disadvantaged families, a goal that has further driven spending.

Take the case of Kentucky. In 1984, school superintendents there sued for more funding, seizing on a guarantee of an “efficient” system of public schools in the state’s constitution to challenge school spending. A trial judge eventually ruled that Kentucky’s General Assembly had failed to provide sufficient resources for efficient public education. But to finance the court’s vision, the state, with a budget of only $8.8 billion at the time, raised taxes by $1.3 billion annually. Within five years, Kentucky’s tax burden jumped from 27th in the nation to 12th-highest among the states.

Education outcomes rose far less impressively. Kentucky students’ scores have increased over the years on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests, but those gains largely mirrored national increases. Perhaps more important, given that the court’s push to reduce funding inequities was about improving disadvantaged students’ life chances, the achievement gap between black and white students hasn’t shrunk in Kentucky. Even on its own spendthrift terms, the judicial campaign to improve schools failed.

Without waiting for the academic results of Kentucky’s massive funding increases, judges in other states also rushed to compel higher school spending, viewing expensive new buildings and additional programs in themselves as signs of improvement. Spending became a de facto measure of success.

As if all this weren’t enough, liberal judges and legal scholars are calling for state courts to push the positive rights agenda even further by guaranteeing such things as minimum welfare payments and government subsidies for food, clothing, housing and medical care to every citizen. But the problem, of course, is that while courts can order states to pay for new material rights, they can’t magically supply the money. Typically, advocates brush the problem aside by observing that the United States is a rich country and can afford the bill.

Constraining state judicial activism won’t be easy. Reform must begin in law schools, where faculties are overwhelmingly liberal and friendly to an activist judiciary (as long as it’s liberal in its activism). James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School surveyed the nation’s top law schools and found that only 13 percent of professors identified as Republicans.

Unless state judges return to a more cautious approach to constitutional language, states and municipalities will find it ever harder to devise sound budgets.

Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.