My blogging haitus is nearly at an end. For now, I offer a couple of quick thoughts about the recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision rejecting an adequacy-based challenge to the state's school financing system.
First, the state defendant won this one on the merits, based on the evidence (particularly, the lack of evidence of causation--more on that below). This, I think, is the first adequacy case of which this can be said. The recent state victories in Indiana and Missouri were not truly of the same character, both being based on a general approach to judicial deference bordering on the political question doctrine. The recent Oregon decision, also a state merits victory, was based on a quirky textual feature of the Oregon Constitution that does not exist in any other. The South Dakota decision, while deferential to legislative policy choices (especially in stating the standard for proving unconstitutionality as "beyond a reasonable doubt"), is based on a much deeper review of the evidence.
Second, and relatedly, the opinion is very well-reasoned and fair in its explanation (I, of course, take no position as to whether the court is representing the state of the record evidence properly, as I was not involved in the trial and have no access to the record on appeal). It takes the arguments of both the state and the plaintiffs very seriously, and is does not appear to place any kind of thumb on the evidentiary scale for either party. This approach is not necessarily new, but this is one of very few school finance decisions on the merits where a state supreme court has gone out of its way to show the readers of its opinion that both sides indeed presented good arguments. I think that goes a long way toward fostering the opinion's perceived legitimacy.
Finally, and most importantly, the South Dakota decision is also the first that has required the plaintiffs to establish a causal link between the many educational deficiencies that they were able to establish in the evidence and the action or inaction of the state government. As perennial state-side litigator Al Lindseth has pointed out both in scholarship and in court, in adequacy cases in which plaintiffs prevail, there is little to no discussion of causation. This South Dakota decision hinges almost completely on the insufficiency of evidence of causation. This feature could make the South Dakota decision a very impactful one.
I look forward to seeing how this opinion works its way into the scholarship.