## Facts

- Texas financed public elementary and secondary education through a state “foundation” program intended to provide a basic minimum offering, supplemented by local school-district revenue from ad valorem property taxes.
- Because taxable property values varied widely by district, the system produced substantial inter-district differences in per-pupil revenue and expenditures.
- Plaintiffs were parents and schoolchildren from a property-poor district who alleged that reliance on local property taxes favored wealthier districts and denied equal educational opportunity to children in poorer districts.
- A three-judge federal district court held the financing scheme unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, treating wealth as a suspect classification and education as a fundamental right, and applying strict scrutiny (and also stating the scheme lacked a rational basis).
- The Supreme Court reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the financing system created a suspect classification based on wealth (or otherwise required strict scrutiny) under the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether education is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution such that significant funding disparities trigger strict scrutiny.
3. If neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right was implicated, whether the system nevertheless failed rational basis review.

## Decision

- The Court held that the challenged scheme was not subject to strict scrutiny because it did not disadvantage a suspect class and did not burden a fundamental right.
- The Court rejected the claim that the system discriminated against a defined class of “poor” persons, emphasizing that the alleged disadvantage turned on residence in districts with low property-tax bases rather than individual poverty.
- The Court held that education, though highly important, is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for Equal Protection purposes.
- Applying rational basis review, the Court upheld the scheme as rationally related to legitimate state interests, including preserving local control over school funding decisions beyond the state-provided minimum.
- The Court concluded that inter-district expenditure disparities resulting from local property taxation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause and reversed the district court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Strict scrutiny under Equal Protection applies when a law disadvantages a suspect class or interferes with a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
- Wealth, as framed by residence in a property-poor district, is not automatically a suspect classification requiring strict scrutiny.
- Education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, even though it is an important governmental service.
- A state school-finance system that produces inter-district spending disparities is constitutional if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, such as maintaining local control over educational funding.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Texas’s reliance on local property taxes to supplement a state minimum education program did not deny equal protection because it neither targeted a suspect class nor burdened a fundamental right, and it was rationally related to legitimate interests including local control of education.


San Antonio Independent Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)