The Case That Was Almost The Next Brown v. Board : San Antonio v. Rodriguez
In the late 1960s, Mexican-American parents in the poor, ninety-six percent minority Edgewood School District became sick of a heartbreaking, frustrating, and seemingly unchangeable fact: no matter how high Edgewood raised property taxes, it would never have even close to the amount of funding as nearby districts. Even though Edgewood had higher property taxes, it was raising half the amount per-pupil of nearby affluent districts. Because wealthier districts had higher property valuations, wealthier schools would always have more money. The parents were sick of it. They formed the Edgewood Concerned Parent Association. Mr. Rodriguez, one of the group’s leaders, sued San Antonio Independent School District and five other wealthy districts under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The court case seemed like it would become the next Brown v. Board. The plaintiffs won appeal after appeal. In an era when discrimination based on race was on everyone’s mind, the plaintiffs argued wealth based discrimination was just as bad. If states were allowed to continue providing an inferior education to impoverished students, the cycle of poverty would become nearly impossible to break. Opportunity and success would continue to be birthright for a few, and unreachable for many. Finally, in 1972, the Federal District Court ruled unanimously in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding the state of Texas had failed to establish a compelling reason for a school funding system which created extreme disparities. The state, which had taken over the case from the school districts, appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court destroyed the hopes of The Edgewood Concerned Parent Association, and set a pernicious precedent that lasts to this day. Justice Powell wrote the majority opinion, which overturned all the lower courts’ decisions. “We cannot say that such disparities are the product of a system that is so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory,” he said of massive differences in school funding. The opinion went on to establish that the poor were not a “suspect class” in need of protecting. Just as destructively, the opinion established that, “though education is one of the most important services performed by the State, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution.” In one fell swoop, the San Antonio Supreme Court decision established three dangerous precedents:
- States can only be sued for discrimination which is done with clear intent,
- The poor cannot be protected as a class from discrimination by courts,
- And education is not a Constitutionally protected right.
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in his dissent, “The majority’s holding can only be seen as a retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educational opportunity … In my judgment, the right of every American to an equal start in life, so far as the provision of a state service as important as education is concerned, is far too vital to permit state discrimination…”
Instead of being the next Brown v. Board, San Antonio ended up being the opposite: a case that made separate and unequal education legal — so long as the discrimination was based on class, not race.
Law scholars today still regard San Antonio as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. When Time Magazine asked law professors to name the worst Supreme Court decision since 1960, Erwin Chemerinsky (University of California, Irvine) and Steven Shiffrin (Cornell University) both argued for San Antonio v. Rodriguez. Shiffrin wrote, “By permitting funds for children in schools to be distributed on the basis of neighborhood wealth instead of educational needs, it has permitted millions of children to be imprisoned in a system of educational inequality.”
San Antonio v. Rodriguez illustrates how one contentious Supreme Court ruling can change an era; if it had gone the other way, the Court likely would have overturned discriminatory school funding models in most states. Instead, impoverished parents can no longer sue for equality with any hope of winning their cases. Instead, students are trapped in under-funded schools, condemned for being born to the wrong zip code. Heartbreaking, frustrating, and seemingly unchangeable.
However, parents are still fighting for equality. Their lawsuits have achieved more wins in state courts. And, as for San Antonio v. Rodriguez, precedents are created to be overturned. The Education Law Center and ACLU both do incredibly important and effective work on behalf of students across the country. Check out their work! In ten years we might see a complete reversal of San Antonio. And if we do, it will be a result of tireless legal work by concerned parents, determined lawyers, and passionate activists.
