Racial imbalance in Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools does not, by itself, violate the Minnesota Constitution. But that imbalance may be a constitutional violation if parents can prove it is a “substantial factor” in causing an inadequate education, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
Lawyers from both sides of the case praised the ruling.
Dan Shulman, an attorney for the parents who originally brought the suit, called it a “huge victory” for his clients and their children.
“The Attorney General’s office appreciates the additional guidance from the Supreme Court on the standard that the plaintiffs must meet to prove their claims,” said Brian Evans, press secretary for Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose office represents the state in the case. “We will continue to litigate this case unless a mutually beneficial settlement can be reached.”
Jack Perry, a lawyer for three charter schools who intervened in the lawsuit, also claimed victory. He said that the new opinion means that school demographics alone will not determine whether culturally affirming charter schools meet state requirements.
“This is a home run for the charter schools,” Perry said. “They survived an attack on the foundation of charter schools.” Some charter-school supporters had seen the case as an existential threat to their educational model.
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling is the latest step in the much-watched case of Cruz-Guzman vs. State of Minnesota, which has been making its way up and down the state court system for eight years. Shulman expressed confidence that he would be able to prove the Supreme Court’s new standard when the case returns to district court for a trial.
Nekima Levy Armstrong, co-counsel for the charter schools, said she thought the plaintiffs would face an “uphill battle” in the case’s next phase.
The Cruz-Guzman case stems from a lawsuit originally filed in the fall of 2015 by a group of Minneapolis and St. Paul parents of color. They alleged that racial and socioeconomic segregation in the public schools has resulted in an inadequate education, and claimed that the state of Minnesota had failed to provide an appropriate education for all children.
The plaintiffs sought to require the state of Minnesota to desegregate schools. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, defending the state, argued that the parents’ claim had no legal basis in the state constitution’s Education Clause. That clause requires the state to provide an education system that is general, uniform, thorough, and efficient.
In the new ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court said that to prevail on their claim, plaintiffs “do not need to establish that state action caused the racial imbalances; they do need to establish, however, that the racial imbalances are a substantial factor in causing their children to receive an inadequate education.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to define what would constitute an adequate education. It also cautioned against speculating about “hypothetical remedies.” The court reminded the parties of its previous statement that “specific determinations of educational policy are matters for the Legislature.” That note of caution, the court stressed, continues to apply.
The opinion was signed by Justice Margaret Chutich. Justice Karl Procaccini, who joined the Supreme Court after the justices heard this case, did not take part.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, the court’s only Black justice, issued a separate dissent. She traced a long history of housing segregation in the Twin Cities and its roots, including racially restrictive housing covenants and discriminatory housing finance policies. She explained that residential segregation has persisted over the decades and continues to cause de facto racial segregation in schools.
“When schools become racial silos, students lack the opportunity to deconstruct racial biases and forge lasting social bonds,” she wrote. “I would hold that the de facto segregation in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools is sufficient, standing alone, to establish a violation of the Education Clause.”
Minnesota charter schools enter the debate
Three Twin Cities charter schools—one that caters to African American students, one designed for East African students, and one that serves many homeless students—intervened as defendants in the case in 2016. They argued that their schools provide specialized and affirming environments where children can succeed. They maintained that children at their schools perform well, and that these environments are not equivalent to the school segregation of the Jim Crow era.
In her dissent, Hudson wrote that these three charter schools appear to be outliers among charter schools with a high proportion of students of color. She did not question the parents’ sincere beliefs that their children were receiving an adequate and culturally affirming education, she said. But that was not sufficient to satisfy a state mandate for all children.
“The Education Clause does not permit the State to satisfy its constitutional duty by building islands of adequacy in a sea of disparities.”
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson
“The Education Clause does not permit the State to satisfy its constitutional duty by building islands of adequacy in a sea of disparities,” she wrote.
Nekima Levy Armstrong, co-counsel for the three charter schools, also invoked a long history of racial discrimination as she praised the court’s “thoughtfulness” in its majority opinion.
“It’s important to recognize that parents who make those choices don’t necessarily see these schools as being ‘racially imbalanced,’” she told Sahan Journal after the ruling. “They see them as being culturally affirming environments.”
She described the court’s ruling as a win for parent choice and culturally affirming schools.
“Why should the white majority be able to decide where Black parents send their children to school, knowing all the disparities we’re up against in every key indicator of quality of life in this state?” Levy Armstrong asked.
Shulman, the attorney for the parents, said he “couldn’t be happier” with the ruling—short of the full Minnesota Supreme Court adopting Hudson’s dissent.
He offered a different summary of the ruling: “If segregation exists, and it causes students to receive an inadequate education, which it demonstrably does in the Twin Cities, then it violates the Education Clause, and the Legislature has to fix it,” he said.
“Why should the white majority be able to decide where Black parents send their children to school, knowing all the disparities we’re up against in every key indicator of quality of life in this state?”
Nekima Levy Armstrong, co-counsel for three charter schools in the Cruz-Guzman case
Josh Crosson, the executive director of education reform advocacy group EdAllies, offered a theory for why both sides of the issue seemed pleased with the ruling. The Supreme Court, Crosson noted, sent them back with a directive to interrogate questions both sides have deemed important: whether, how, and, why children of color are underserved by Minnesota’s education system.
He said he looked forward to the conversation about improving Minnesota schools, with a focus on student outcomes.
“We think schools should be held accountable to outcomes, and Minnesota should ensure students are getting a good education,” Crosson said. “If racial imbalance is the reason for schools underperforming, we need to address that as a state. But at the same time, if a school with predominantly students of color is thriving because they’re offering strong academics or a culturally relevant setting, we should be celebrating those schools and not undermining their success.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court visits Richfield High School
In May, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case while seated onstage at the Richfield High School auditorium. Students listened in, as part of the court’s Traveling Oral Arguments program, which brings cases to schools for a real-life civics lesson.
The question before the high court was narrow: Is de facto school segregation a violation of the Minnesota Constitution? And if so, under what circumstances?
PREVIOUS COVERAGE
Much of the argument on stage back in May focused on questions of whether racial imbalances in schools are intentional. But in its opinion today, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that the state had not argued that intent is required. “The parents on remand can establish a violation of the Education Clause without showing that the State intended to violate the Clause,” the court wrote.
The Supreme Court also said that the state can be held responsible for educational failures at the district level. “The State suggests that the Legislature is not responsible for—and therefore not required to remedy—an inadequate education caused by policies adopted at the local, school district, as opposed to the state, level. We disagree,” the court wrote.
The case isn’t over yet
The case will now return to Hennepin County District Court. The parents who originally filed the lawsuit will need to prove their case using the Minnesota Supreme Court’s new burden of proof.
That is, parents will have to establish that the racial segregation in their children’s schools was a “substantial factor” in causing their children to receive an inadequate education.
Shulman, the parents’ attorney, expressed confidence that he could meet this standard. He said that he’s lined up many expert witnesses who could demonstrate the causal link.
“We don’t have to prove intent,” Shulman said. “We don’t have to prove the state caused the de facto segregation. All we have to show is that it’s a substantial factor in bringing about an inadequate education.”
Though Levy Armstrong celebrated a win for her clients—the three charter schools—she said they would continue to pursue the case. If the plaintiffs prove their case in the trial’s next stage, she said, that “could definitely have an impact on culturally affirming charter schools which could be considered racially imbalanced.”
Her own children have told her about the “big difference” between their experiences at different schools, Levy Armstrong said. They’ve recounted feeling happier at schools designed with them in mind, she said.
“That’s why that autonomy is so important,” she said.
