Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education, 550 U.S. 81 (2007)
Primary Holding
The statutory language of the federal Impact Aid Act permits the Secretary of Education to determine which school districts to "disregard" when calculating disparities in per-pupil expenditures by considering both the size of the district's expenditures and the number of pupils in the district.
In the case of Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, the Supreme Court decided that the Secretary of Education can choose which school districts to ignore when figuring out how much money each student gets from the state. This matters because it helps ensure that funding is fairly distributed, especially in areas where federal presence affects local school budgets. This decision protects consumers—specifically families and students—by promoting a more equitable funding system for schools, which can lead to better educational opportunities for all children, regardless of where they live. This case is relevant for parents and guardians when they consider how school funding might impact their children's education, especially in districts affected by federal land or military presence.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, the dispute arose over the interpretation of a federal statute concerning the calculation of public school funding in relation to per-pupil expenditures among local school districts. The Zuni Public School District challenged the method used by the Secretary of Education to determine whether the New Mexico state funding program met the federal requirement for equalizing expenditures. Specifically, the contention was about the Secretary's authority to disregard certain school districts with per-pupil expenditures above the 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile when calculating disparities in funding. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary's approach, which included considering the number of pupils in addition to the expenditure levels when determining which districts to disregard. The Zuni Public School District sought a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was incorrect and that it adversely affected the funding available to their district. The relevant background context includes the federal Impact Aid Act, which provides financial assistance to school districts impacted by federal presence, such as military bases or federal land exempt from local taxes. The Act aims to prevent states from offsetting federal aid with reduced state funding, while also allowing for exceptions where state programs can demonstrate equalized funding across districts. The statute outlines specific criteria and formulas for determining whether state aid programs meet the equalization requirement, which was central to the arguments presented in this case.
Whether the statutory language of the federal Impact Aid Act permits the Secretary of Education to identify school districts to be "disregarded" in the calculation of per-pupil expenditures by considering both the number of pupils in the district and the size of the district's expenditures per pupil.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 10, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Breyer
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)
Consumer LostThe burden of persuasion in an impartial due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lies with the party seeking relief.
Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom F., 552 U.S. 1 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by an equally divided Court, indicating that the ruling of the Second Circuit stands without establishing a new legal principle or rule.
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005)
Consumer WonThe Government's promises to pay contract support costs to Indian tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are legally binding, even if Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds for those costs.
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)
Consumer LostTaxpayer standing to challenge government expenditures under the Establishment Clause is limited; general taxpayer status does not confer standing unless the expenditure is specifically authorized by Congress for a purpose that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause.