Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Fourteen public school
Speaker 1: students and parents are suing the state of Rhode Island
Speaker 1: claiming that the state has failed to carry out its
Speaker 1: constitutional responsibility to prepare students to be good citizens. Their
Speaker 1: real aim goes far beyond the federal courts in Rhode
Speaker 1: Island to the Supreme Court of the United States and
Speaker 1: a forty five year old ruling joining me is Casey Johnson,
Speaker 1: professor at Brooklyn College. Casey tell us a little more
Speaker 1: about the lawsuit, all right. This is a lawsuit that
Speaker 1: was filed in late November against basically the political leadership
Speaker 1: of Rhode Island and the state Board of Education, arguing
Speaker 1: that the State of Rhode Island had failed public school
Speaker 1: students as a whole, and in particular horror students and
Speaker 1: students of color, by failing to provide them a sufficient
Speaker 1: education in civics, basic understanding of American government of state government.
Speaker 1: How politics and public policy operated, and the lawsuits sites
Speaker 1: a variety of statistics and surveys suggesting that really appallingly
Speaker 1: low percentages of public school students no basic understanding of
Speaker 1: data about how the American government operates and how our
Speaker 1: system operates. And their argument, which is which is a stretch,
Speaker 1: is that this failure by the state violates the constitutional
Speaker 1: right to do process of these students because the state
Speaker 1: is failing to train them as sufficient citizens and as
Speaker 1: prospective in particular jurors and voters. How many states hold
Speaker 1: there are local schools accountable for teaching civics and where
Speaker 1: is the line between what's acceptable and what's not right
Speaker 1: That it's a great question, and it's something that has
Speaker 1: has shifted a lot in the last twenty five or
Speaker 1: thirty years. So if you went back, say to the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties or nineteen seventies, civics instruction was a pretty
Speaker 1: common element of most public school curriculum around the country.
Speaker 1: It has essentially evaporated at the high school level in
Speaker 1: the last two generations, along with geography, which is a
Speaker 1: related field which also gets cited in the lawsuit. And
Speaker 1: the sense is that this is kind of boring material
Speaker 1: and that students already know this material and we need
Speaker 1: to broaden their curricular reach. So the lawsuit is correct
Speaker 1: in its argument that relatively few states are requiring this
Speaker 1: and relatively few students are actually encountering enriched civics education.
Speaker 1: The lead lawyer in the case argued a similar argument
Speaker 1: against the State of New York, but there he argued
Speaker 1: under state law in the state constitution and in a
Speaker 1: very sort of different framework than the Rhode Island lawsuits.
Speaker 1: The lawyers in this case are already talking about the
Speaker 1: Supreme in this case possibly going to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So to give some context, tell us about the case
Speaker 1: of San Antonio v. Rodriguez from forty five years ago.
Speaker 1: All right, so this is a night in early nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: Case has designed in nineteen seventy three, and it dealt
Speaker 1: with an issue which which on paper is tangential to
Speaker 1: the issue that's before before this lawsuit, and a dealt
Speaker 1: with the question of unequal funding in public schools. Public schools,
Speaker 1: for the most part in the United States are funded
Speaker 1: through property taxes, and so you know, if you're from
Speaker 1: a rich community, the school the schools are getting more
Speaker 1: than if you're coming from a poor community, and the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in the San Antonio case argued that this disparity
Speaker 1: in funding led to such a disparity in the quality
Speaker 1: of the education that their rights as citizens perspective citizens
Speaker 1: and their fundamental right to education was violated, and the
Speaker 1: court ruled five to four basically that they could put
Speaker 1: this question. The majority in the rodrique As case said
Speaker 1: that even if we assume there's a fundamental right to
Speaker 1: equality education, and they're not quite willing to assume that
Speaker 1: that's simply because these schools had disparate levels of funding
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the kids who went to the poorer schools,
Speaker 1: we're not getting a sufficiently quality education. So what this
Speaker 1: law student tries to do is to say, look, we're
Speaker 1: going to document in this one area civics education, that
Speaker 1: these students from poorer schools are in fact not getting
Speaker 1: equality education. Because I think everyone would agree that in
Speaker 1: an ideal world, public school students would understand basic civics
Speaker 1: And because we can document that these students aren't getting
Speaker 1: equality education, the court should go back, we visit the
Speaker 1: Rodriquez president and say that courts can dictate two states
Speaker 1: that they have to provide a sufficient level, minimum level
Speaker 1: of quality to all students. So this is this case
Speaker 1: is really an uphill battle. It's a upsift battle, would
Speaker 1: be an understatement. Um, they're trying to think of what's
Speaker 1: worse than an upfield battle in a legal case, right,
Speaker 1: because you know the seventy three decision is a five
Speaker 1: forward decision with with the descent written by Justice Marshall. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a much much more conservative court
Speaker 1: that we now have. So you would have to imagine
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts adopting the thinking of Justice
Speaker 1: Marshall and descent and applying it to a majority, which
Speaker 1: you know, which is difficult to do. That's set. Lawsuits
Speaker 1: often have multiple purposes, right, and so one purpose is
Speaker 1: to try to get this to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: try to force the Supreme Court to address this issue.
Speaker 1: Before it does that, it would have to go through
Speaker 1: the First Circuit, which is a much more liberal court.
Speaker 1: And there certainly are judges on the First Circuit that
Speaker 1: I could see as somewhat sympathetic to this to this viewpoint.
Speaker 1: But even if they lose in court, you know, part
Speaker 1: of the goal here seems to be a to shame
Speaker 1: the leadership of the state of Rhode Island to actually,
Speaker 1: you know, begin to address these questions and be to
Speaker 1: try to educate the public that issues that most people
Speaker 1: just assume are being taught in the public schools are
Speaker 1: in fact not being taught. And to the extent that
Speaker 1: you know that we're discussing this this case now, they
Speaker 1: are accomplishing at least that educational goal with the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: even if the litigation itself remains Yeah, very very much
Speaker 1: a long shot. Thanks so much. It is a fascinating
Speaker 1: lawsuit and an important issue. That's Casey Johnson. He's a
Speaker 1: professor at Brooklyn College. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg. Ye