Legal Updates: Illinois and South Dakota

ILLINOIS:

In Illinois, plaintiffs in Chicago Urban League v. State survived a motion to dismiss on their state civil rights claim. The Circuit Court of Cook County held on April 15, 2009 that plaintiffs claim that the state education finance system has the effect of providing substantially lower dollar amounts per student in “majorityminority” school districts states a valid cause of action and that the case may therefore proceed to trial. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, individuals can not file discriminatory impact claims under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in federal court, but a private right of action is available under the Illinois Civil Rights Act, the provisions of which are similar to Title VI.

The Illinois Court dismissed the plaintiffs education adequacy claims because of the binding precedent of Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (1996), in which the Illinois Supreme Court held that adequacy claims are not justiciable. Plaintiffs are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court to ask it to re-consider that precedent.


SOUTH DAKOTA:

In a recent decision in Davis v. State of South Dakota, Circuit Court Judge Lori S. Wilbur found that the South Dakota constitution entitles students to a “thorough and efficient” education that “provides the opportunity to prepare students for life after school in today’s modern society or to prepare students to be responsible and intelligent citizens and to be competitive in areas beyond secondary education.” Nevertheless, she ruled in an extensive 312 page decision that the resources, curriculum, and facilities currently provided to students are constitutionally sufficient, she issued a judgment in favor of defendants on all counts. Plaintiffs anticipate an appeal to the state supreme court.

In August, only a week or so before the trial, Judge Wilbur had ruled that the school district plaintiffs were precluded from contributing money to cover legal fees in the case. That issue is currently pending before the South Dakota Supreme Court.