Abbott v. Burke, 196 N.J. 544

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered motions concerning the constitutionality of the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 as applied to pupils in Abbott districts and whether prior remedial orders remained necessary. The court held that the issues could not be resolved on an undeveloped record and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The opinion discusses New Jersey’s constitutional thorough-and-efficient-education requirement and the history of the Abbott school-funding litigation.

Holdings

1. The prior Abbott decisions and remedial orders did not preclude the Legislature and Executive from developing and adopting an alternative funding approach, provided the State demonstrates that the approach is equitable and constitutionally adequate for Abbott-district students.
2. The Court could not determine on the existing record whether SFRA provided Abbott districts with sufficient resources to deliver a thorough and efficient education.
3. The State bears the burden of proving that SFRA provides sufficient resources to enable Abbott districts, including their at-risk students, to deliver a thorough and efficient education as defined by the Core Curriculum Content Standards.
4. The prior Abbott decisions and remedial orders remained in effect during the remand and until the Court approved an alternative funding program.
5. Funding an Abbott district at 102 percent of its prior-year funding level was presumptively sufficient for the current year, but an Abbott district could attempt to rebut that presumption by showing that it could not provide a thorough and efficient education with that funding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prior Abbott decisions and remedial orders categorically barred the Legislature and Executive from adopting an alternative school-funding formula.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could determine on the existing affidavit record that SFRA was constitutional as applied to Abbott-district students.
3. Whether the State was entitled to immediate relief from the prior Abbott remedial orders and whether those orders should remain in effect during further proceedings.
4. Whether current-year funding at 102 percent of the prior year's funding level was presumptively sufficient, subject to rebuttal by an Abbott district.

Disposition

remanded