## Facts

- Two testamentary scholarship trusts were consolidated on appeal; each limited scholarships to “young men” graduating from public high schools.
- In the Wilson matter, the will required the public school district superintendent to certify the highest-ranking male graduates as a condition to awarding scholarships.
- In the Johnson matter, the local public school district’s board of education (a governmental body) was named trustee to administer a male-only scholarship program.
- Complaints asserted that participation by public school officials in administering sex-restricted scholarships constituted unlawful sex discrimination under constitutional and related civil-rights constraints.
- In Wilson, the Surrogate’s Court upheld the arrangement, but the Appellate Division reformed the trust to remove the superintendent’s role and permit students to apply directly to the private trustee.
- In Johnson, the Surrogate’s Court replaced the public board of education with a private trustee to avoid constitutional state action; the Appellate Division reversed, reasoning that judicial reformation facilitating continued discrimination was itself impermissible state involvement.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school superintendent’s certification role or a public board of education’s trusteeship in administering a sex-restricted scholarship constitutes “state action” subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether a court may reform a discriminatory charitable trust to eliminate unconstitutional state action while leaving the donor’s sex-based beneficiary restriction in place.
3. Whether trust-law modification doctrines (cy pres or deviation) permit changes that preserve the charitable plan while avoiding unconstitutional state participation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that administration of sex-restricted scholarships by public school officials (as trustees or required certifiers) constitutes state action that cannot be maintained consistent with equal protection.
- The Court rejected the view that a court necessarily violates equal protection by reforming a trust to remove state involvement; a court may sever state participation without making the discrimination state policy.
- The Court approved reformation measures aimed at withdrawing public actors from the trusts’ administration (e.g., removing a superintendent’s certification function and replacing a public board-trustee with a private trustee) so the scholarships could operate without state action.

## Legal Principles

- The Equal Protection Clause constrains discriminatory conduct attributable to the State; purely private donative choices are not unconstitutional unless the State administers, enforces, or becomes sufficiently involved in the discrimination.
- Public school officials’ integral roles in selecting recipients or serving as trustees for sex-restricted scholarships constitute state action.
- Courts may use charitable-trust modification tools (cy pres or deviation) to preserve general charitable intent by removing unlawful administrative features, including disentangling public entities and officials from discriminatory trust mechanics.
- Judicial modification is permissible when it withdraws state participation; courts may not structure ongoing administration in a way that functionally enlists the State to carry out the discriminatory classification.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted scholarship trusts to continue only if reformed to eliminate governmental participation in sex-based exclusions, holding that equal protection bars public officials from administering such programs while allowing courts to modify trust administration to sever state action and preserve lawful charitable intent.


In re Estate of Wilson, 59 N.Y.2d 461 (N.Y. 1983)