San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez | |
---|---|
Argued October 12, 1972 Decided March 21, 1973 | |
Full case name | San Antonio Independent School District, et al. v. Demetrio P. Rodriguez, et al. |
Citations | 411 U.S. 1 (more) 93 S. Ct. 1278; 36 L. Ed. 2d 16; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 91 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, 337 F. Supp. 280 W.D. Tex. (1971); probable jurisdiction noted, 406 U.S. 966 (1972). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 411 U.S. 959 (1973). |
Holding | |
Reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it causes inter-district expenditure disparities. Absolute equality of education funding is not required and a state system that encourages local control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
Concurrence | Stewart |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | White, joined by Douglas, Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall, joined by Douglas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
This article is part of a series on |
Education in the United States |
---|
Summary |
Curriculum topics |
Education policy issues |
Levels of education |
Education portal United States portal |
Part of a series on |
Chicanos and Mexican Americans |
---|
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.[1]
The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the U.S. Constitution, supporting the principle that education is a fundamental right. Urging that the school financing system led to wealth-based discrimination, the plaintiffs had argued that the fundamental right to education should be applied to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that there was no such fundamental right and that the unequal school financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny.