Appeals Court Deals Blows to State in School Takeover Cases

The 18-page Warren opinion referenced several explanations in the much lengthier 48-page Harrisburg one. But where Harrisburg had nine counts, Warren had only five. Four of them survived the commonwealth’s challenges.

The state succeeded in dismissing only one count of the Warren suit, that Act 16 unconstitutionally delegates power to the “empowerment board of control” by providing it with all the powers of the elected school board, including the power to incur debt. Pellegrini said there was no violation of the state constitution because the Board of Control does not have the authority to levy taxes.

The counts which remained were:

* Count I says the Reed Amendment creates a special class of one school district, the Chester-Upland School District, in violation of Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

* Count II says that the Chester-Upland School District’s status as “financially distressed” is not a reasonable justification for differential treatment, in violation of Article IX, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

* Count IV says the act violates Equal Protection under the Pennsylvania Constitution.

* Count V says the act violates Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In Warren, as in Harrisburg, Judge James Gardner Colins filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, stating he agreed with Pellegrini’s dismissal of Count III, but would have preferred to see all other counts dismissed as well.

“The Chester Upland School District has distinguished itself as among the most in need of the potential benefits of immediate application of Act 16′s educational empowerment reforms,” he wrote.

‘Special Legislation’

In both the Harrisburg and Chester-Upland cases, the districts are protesting the law because of the constitutional proscription against “special legislation” in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The provision was intended to “put an end to the flood of privileged legislation for particular localities and for private purposes which was common in 1873,” wrote Pellegrini. But he pointed out that the Constitution does not require all legislation be applicable to the entire commonwealth.

For nearly 70 years after the prohibition on “special” laws, population was the sole valid ground for classification of municipalities, Pellegrini said. But since 1942′s Haverford Township v. Seigle, the said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized the Legislature could create other kinds of classifications, as long as they did not establish a “closed class.”

But where “‘the class to which a statute is made is unnecessarily restricted or improperly selected, the law is special,’” Pellegrini said. And that is true of the Reed Amendment, he said. Quoting another case, he said the amendment represents “classification gone mad.”

“Even if we had held the Reed Amendment was not special legislation because it created a closed class of one, the Harrisburg School District, we still would have struck down the Reed Amendment because no rational basis exists to treat that district different than other districts. … Just because there is a great need and there is a ‘man on a white horse’ who will attempt to rectify the situation (Harrisburg) or the situation is so grave (Chester Upland) does not mean the Constitution should be ignored … That which is constitutionally proscribed may not be circumvented, whether for good cause or bad,” wrote Pellegrini in Harrisburg.

Harrisburg Case