## Facts

- Vermont financed public education largely through local property taxes, supplemented by limited state equalizing aid.
- Large differences in town property wealth produced major disparities in per-pupil spending and educational offerings among school districts.
- Property-rich towns could raise high revenues at low tax rates and offer broader programs and better facilities; property-poor towns often could not match those opportunities even with higher tax rates.
- Students and parents from multiple districts sued the State, claiming the system denied children in property-poor districts equal educational opportunity.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause (ch. I, art. 7) and Education Clause (ch. II, § 68).
- The trial court ruled for plaintiffs and declared the funding system unconstitutional; the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a school-finance system substantially dependent on local property taxes, producing large district-by-district disparities tied to property wealth, violates the Common Benefits Clause and Education Clause by denying substantially equal educational opportunity.
2. Whether the Vermont Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to equal educational opportunity requiring more searching review than rational-basis deference.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held that Vermont school-age children have a fundamental right to equal educational opportunity grounded in the Education Clause and Common Benefits Clause.
- The court held the existing funding scheme unconstitutional because it deprived children of equal educational opportunity by making educational quality depend heavily on local property wealth.
- The court declined to design a replacement system and left the remedy to the Legislature.

## Legal Principles

- When the State undertakes to provide public education, it must ensure educational opportunity is available to all children on substantially equal terms.
- The Common Benefits Clause functions as Vermont’s equal-protection guarantee and forbids conferring governmental benefits in a way that systematically advantages some groups without justification serving the common good.
- The Education Clause imposes a state duty to support a public education system and supports recognition of education-related rights under state law.
- Wealth-based disparities in educational opportunity that track community property values violate the Vermont Constitution when they are substantial and structurally produced by the finance system.
- State constitutional protections may exceed federal constitutional minima; federal approval of similar systems under the U.S. Constitution does not control Vermont constitutional analysis.
- Courts may declare a system unconstitutional while reserving to the Legislature the task of crafting a constitutionally compliant funding framework.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Vermont’s property-tax-driven school-finance structure because it produced substantial, wealth-correlated disparities that denied children a fundamental state constitutional right to substantially equal educational opportunity, and it directed the Legislature to enact a constitutionally adequate remedy.


Brigham v. State, 166 Vt. 246, 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997)