Kentucky Supreme Court (front, from left) Debra Hembree Lambert, Laurance VanMeter, Michelle Keller. (Back row, from left) Shea Nickell, Kelly Thompson, Robert Conley, Angela McCormick Bisig. (AOC photo/Brian Bohannon)
The state Supreme Court in a narrowly-decided ruling has potentially opened an avenue for the General Assembly to impose laws on a single Kentucky locale or entity.
In a 4-3 ruling issued Thursday, the high court upheld a 2022 law that at present applies only to Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS). The law shifts power from the elected school board to the appointed superintendent.
The Supreme Court decision overturns earlier rulings by Jefferson Circuit Court and the Kentucky Court of Appeals, both of which found the law was unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Shea Nickell, the Supreme Court ruled 2022’s Senate Bill 1 can stand. As written, the legislation would change the relationship between school boards and superintendents only “in a county school district with a consolidated local government,” a description that fits only the state’s largest school district, which has been the target of criticism by Republicans. Backed by Republican lawmakers, the legislation would make a host of administrative and academic changes, including provisions directed at the management of JCPS.
The lawsuit focuses on two sections of the Kentucky Constitution regarding so-called “special legislation.” Section 59 bars the General Assembly from enacting laws that would apply to only a single locale or entity. It specifically prohibits “local or special acts concerning … the management of common schools.” Section 60 prevents the legislature from not enacting “any special or local act” by exempting a local entity from the operation of a general act.
“The argument that S.B. 1 is unconstitutional local legislation because the (JCPS) Board is currently the only existing member of the class is without merit,” Nickell wrote.
Joining Nickell were Justices Debra Hembree Lambert and Robert Conley and Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter.
Nickell wrote that other school districts could in the future come under the law’s purview.
“In the context of Section 59, a classification does not apply to a particular individual, object, or locale unless the scope of the class is permanently closed,” Nickell wrote.
Dissent says ruling nullifies constitutional protections
Justice Angela McCormick Bisig in her dissent scoffed at the majority’s reasoning, saying their ruling had made a “nullity” of the state Constitution’s bans on special legislation. She was joined by Justices Michelle Keller and Kelly Thompson.
“One need not stretch to the extreme of colorful hypotheticals to reach this conclusion,” she added. She said under the ruling the General Assembly could limit funding for any public university west of the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, which would just be Murray State University, “but nonetheless would be permissible because it is possible another public university might someday exist in the described area.” She also argued “a statute requiring any museum with a life-sized replica of Noah’s Ark to be taxed at a higher rate than other museums would be permissible” as Kentucky only has one such museum but another “might someday be built.”
Bisig predicted the General Assembly will be able to evade the constitutional bans on special legislation, as it is “more than capable of concocting clever ‘open classes’ that in effect are likely only ever to reach a single ‘individual, object or locale.’”
“Or, as in the present case, a statute altering the school district-superintendent relationship only in ‘a county school district with a consolidated local government adopted under KRS Chapter 67C’ is permissible because the General Assembly was able to craft a unique description for the district that might be capable of applying to another district at some point in the future,” she said.
Nickell wrote that the majority “strenuously” rejects the minority’s contention that the ruling undermines the intent of the Constitution’s ban on special legislation.
Citing previous court decisions, Nickell said Kentucky “has long recognized ‘a clear distinction between a general and a special law, stating ‘[a] statute which relates to persons or things as a class is a general law, while a statute which relates to particular persons or things of a class is special.’”
After legal analysis, the court “cannot conclude the application of S.B. 1 is limited to a particular individual, object, or locale,” Nickell wrote.
“The text of S.B. 1 neither mentions Louisville or Jefferson County in particular nor does the plain language indirectly limit any and all future applications of the statute to this particular locale,” he wrote. “On the contrary, it generally pertains to ‘a county school district in a county with a consolidated local government under KRS Chapter 67C.’ This language pertains to the Board as a member of an open classification. Thus, S.B. 1 does not violate Section 59.”
In the dissent, Bisig argued lawmakers “now may pass legislation that reaches only a single individual, object or locale, so long as it does so by adopting a class definition that is ‘open,’ no matter how remote or speculative the possibility that another might later join the class.”
“What is left of Section 59 and 60 is a wholly empty shell prohibiting only legislation that either explicitly reaches only a single expressly named individual, object or locale, or that sets forth a class definition so narrow that only one member could ever exist,” Bisig said. “Unsurprisingly, the statute at issue here survives the Majority’s wholly impotent test, despite the fact the statute applies only to the Jefferson County Public School District.”
Republican leader applauds decision, criticizes JCPS
Republican Senate President Robert Stivers praised the ruling in a statement Thursday afternoon. He added that the legislature acted constitutionally and appropriately” when establishing the 2022 law and said it was not special legislation.
“This ruling is a shot across the bow to Kentucky’s largest school district, one which continues to fail its students, particularly low-income and minority students,” Stivers said.
“As education receives the largest portion of our state’s budget, funded by hard-working Kentuckians, this body will continue to provide the legal framework by which Kentucky’s public school boards educate our children.”
The JCPS board immediately challenged the law after the General Assembly passed it.
Corrie Shull, chair of the JCPS board, said in a Thursday afternoon statement the board disagreed with the majority ruling and “strongly” agreed with Bisig’s dissenting opinion.
“We will review the Court’s decision which will redistribute major decision-making authority from the voters’ elected board members to the appointed superintendent, giving Jefferson County voters fewer rights over their children’s education than voters elsewhere,” Shull said. “By upholding SB 1 and its provision limiting the board meetings to once per month, the Court’s decision will hamstring the board’s ability to react quickly and make decisions in emergency situations. The ruling could also have a substantial impact on the board’s discussions as we search for our next superintendent.”
The current superintendent, Marty Pollio, previously announced he plans to retire this summer.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in the case in August. There, Thompson said the legislation “is direct legislative interference, directly to the school.”
In recent years, Frankfort Republicans have sought increased oversight of JCPS through legislation. This interim session, a legislative task force met to review the management of schools with student enrollment above 75,000. JCPS is the only district in Kentucky that meets that criteria. Pollio said in a September letter to employees announcing his retirement that the district pushed “back on attacks from Frankfort since 2017.”
Broader impacts?
Sam Corbett, a former JCPS board member, said in a phone interview that the Supreme Court’s ruling “seems like a bad decision.” The new ruling appears to take away local authority from the school district and put it in the hands of the legislature. He also raised concerns about how this decision could affect other entities, such as colleges, universities and more.
Local school board members across the state should be concerned about the ruling, Corbett said.
“If I was a sitting board member looking at this decision, I would be concerned about what might come down the pathways in the future,” Corbett said. While this measure only impacts JCPS in the short-term, it gives the legislature broader power in the future, he added.
Corbett said there is a lot of “animosity” between JCPS and the legislature, but he can see both sides of the issue.
“In some cases, maybe some of the legislators don’t understand the challenges that you have around JCPS,” Corbett said. “Now, having said that, you’ve also had examples of JCPS board members who, in some cases, wanted to go to war with the legislators, which obviously, I don’t think is a good idea.”
This story will be updated.