Supreme Court to
Hear Durant IV Case
News Service, December 18, 2002
For more articles visit
Just weeks after refusing to take up the third lawsuit from
school districts over special education funding from the state,
the Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear
arguments on the fourth lawsuit in the long-running case.
The court order did not explain why the justices decided to hear
the so-called Durant IV case, but not Durant III. In November,
the court declined to take up the third case.
Attorneys for the school districts said they did not know how
much money is riding on the case (Adair v. Department of
Education et al, SC Docket No. 121536). But Dennis Pollard, who
has litigated the last three cases, said he is hopeful of
success this time. The districts have not had an outright
victory since the first lawsuit.
Mr. Pollard said he expects it will take about a year before a
final decision is issued. "We're hopeful we can get the right
answer this time," he said.
He said it sounds like the court agreed to consider all the
issues the schools sought to be reviewed. Mr. Pollard said he
had not yet tried to quantify the amount of money the state
would owe if the court sides with the districts, but added, "It
would be significant."
The lawsuit by 467 districts asserts that the state has required
schools perform a variety of new services since the Headlee
Amendment to the constitution was adopted in 1978 without
providing the money needed to run them.
A 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling agreed with the state that the
suit should be thrown out because the districts that were part
of the original Durant case should have brought the claims then.
The districts had rejected that argument, saying the claims were
made under distinct provisions of the Headlee amendment.
The Supreme Court order indicates it will hear arguments on
whether the original Durant decision bars plaintiffs in that
case from receiving funds in this one; whether plaintiffs in
this case not participating in the original one waived their
right to relief; and whether the appeals court erred in how it
handled the case.
Justice Marilyn Kelly added a separate request asking attorneys
for each side to prepare arguments on whether a judgment for
declaratory relief for the plaintiffs would require an increase
in total state spending to affected districts.
Officials in the State Budget Office could not be reached for
The Engler administration had hoped the case was settled long
ago with passage of a 1997 package that gave schools $1 billion
in a combination of bonding and withdrawals from the Budget