California School Boards Ass'n v. State

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 696·192 Cal. App. 4th 770·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 164
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 9, 2011No. D055659California11,654 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haller, J.

When the Legislature enacts a law requiring a local school district to implement a new program or a higher level of service, the California Constitution requires the State of California (State) to pay the cost of the mandate and prohibits the State from transferring the cost to the school district. During the past decade, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes requiring school districts to implement many new programs and services. *779 However, because of budget difficulties, the State has not paid the full cost of these programs and services. Instead, it has sought to satisfy the constitutional requirement by paying a nominal amount for each mandate and deferring the remaining costs to an indefinite time.

In 2007, the California School Boards Association and several school districts (collectively School Districts) brought a lawsuit against the State and two of its officers, challenging this practice of deferring, rather than paying in full, the cost of the state-imposed mandates. 1 The School Districts sought several forms of relief, including (1) declaratory relief that this practice was unconstitutional; (2) injunctive relief prohibiting the State from engaging…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.