Education – Civics – Rhode Island public schools

Listen to this article

Where a complaint was filed alleging that Rhode Island’s failure to provide public school students with an adequate civics education violated the students’ constitutional rights, a U.S. District Court judgment dismissing the complaint should be affirmed because an adequate civics education is not a fundamental constitutional right, which is fatal to the plaintiffs’ substantive due process and equal protection claims.

“This appeal raises the question of whether Rhode Island’s alleged failure to provide public school students with an adequate civics education can state a claim for violation of the students’ constitutional rights. On behalf of a putative class of ‘all students attending public K-12 schools in Rhode Island … who are not receiving a meaningful opportunity to obtain the degree of education that is necessary to prepare them to be capable voters and jurors, to exercise effectively their right of free speech, to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system and to function productively as civic participants,’ several students (‘Appellants’ or ‘Students’) brought an action for declaratory relief against the Governor and various Rhode Island officials and agencies (‘Rhode Island’) under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Republican Guarantee Clause of Art. IV, section4 of the U.S. Constitution, all of which the district court dismissed. A.C. v. Raimondo, 494 F. Supp. 3d 170, 175 (D.R.I. 2020). …

“The Students appeal the district court’s conclusion that an adequate civics education is not a fundamental constitutional right, which was fatal to their Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection claims. …

“Appellants here read [San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)] to suggest that, if properly alleged, we may conclude that the Constitution protects the specific right to a civics education that prepares them to participate effectively in these important aspects of public life (e.g., voting or other civic participation). We read the language in Rodriguez, however, to reject this proposition. …

“Here, much like the petitioners in Papasan [v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)] and Rodriguez, the Students do not plausibly allege that they were ‘deprived of a minimally adequate education,’ i.e., state action tantamount to a ‘radical’ or ‘absolute denial’ of any ‘educational opportunity.’ … Instead, their complaint alleges that Rhode Island’s policies vis-à-vis civics-related curriculum is substantively inadequate to prepare them for meaningful civic engagement as adults, whether through insufficient course offerings and extracurricular activities, or that state standards do not conform to the [College, Career and Civic Life (C3)] framework that educators and policy organizations have endorsed. But as we have discussed, the Court rejected a similar argument in Rodriguez. … And the Court has never suggested that the minimum ‘quantum of education’ that could be constitutionally required must necessarily include instruction in certain subject matters or ensure certain educational outcomes (perhaps with the exception of an opportunity for basic literacy). … Thus, as the district court aptly determined, the right to participate in a functioning democracy is ‘not wholly inaccessible without civics education.’ …

“We also take judicial notice of relevant Rhode Island law, which has since 2007 required at least some civics education in its schools, even if it is not as comprehensive as the framework Appellants desire, and this law was amended recently during the pendency of this appeal to require civics proficiency, among other changes. …

“As described above, the complaint here fails to allege a total deprivation of a minimally adequate education (as opposed to specific subject-matter inclusion). …

“For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the students have not plausibly alleged the deprivation of a fundamental right. …

“… Rhode Island asserts several justifications for its actions regarding civics education. First, Rhode Island notes that the state has not denied access to civics education, but rather that its laws indeed require civics education in some form. Second, Rhode Island contends that it has an interest in allowing curricular and extracurricular decisions to be made at the local level. Third, Rhode Island explains that to the extent it has favored certain classes over others, like science and math, those decisions were made to prepare students for the workforce or to comply with federal law that mandates testing in these areas. …

“The state’s asserted reasons are at least ‘plausible,’ which satisfies the ‘forgiving’ rational basis inquiry. … In particular, we note that states, and more so schools and teachers, must grapple with limited resources and time to educate their students, all while satisfying multiple demands, including mandated federal standards for testing and proficiency, which can affect their funding. We do not doubt the importance of the civics curriculum proffered by the Students and their amici, but we also do not doubt the importance of reading, science and math, both for providing a basic education and for preparing students to succeed in higher education and the workforce.

“Finally, as to the equal protection claim, we note that the Students have also failed to tie the difference between their schools and more affluent ones (that do provide elective civics courses and experiences) to policies implemented or enforced by Rhode Island to create this alleged disparity, aside from mere mention that one district offers some optional courses. But to state an equal protection claim, the Students must connect the alleged disparity to a specific policy or action taken by Rhode Island that caused these differences. … Here, they have not.

“For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Rhode Island’s approach to civics education satisfies rational basis review. …

“We conclude by echoing the district court’s observations in dismissing this case, that the Students have called attention to critical issues of declining civic engagement and inadequate preparation for participation in civic life at a time when many are concerned about the future of American democracy. … Nevertheless, the weight of precedent stands in the Students’ way here, and they have not stated any viable claim for relief.”

A.C., et al. v. McKee, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-009-22) (20 pages) (Casper, J., of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation) Appealed from a decision by Smith, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Michael A. Rebell, with whom Center for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University, Jennifer L. Wood, Rhode Island Center for Justice, Samuel D. Zurier, Stephen Robinson and Robinson & Clapham were on brief, for the plaintiffs-appellants; Michael W. Field, with whom Andrea M. Shea and Keith Hoffmann were on brief, for defendants-appellees Daniel J. McKee, Nicholas A. Mattiello and Domenick J. Ruggerio; Anthony F. Cottone for defendants-appellees Rhode Island Board of Education, Council on Elementary and Secondary Education and Angélica Infante-Green; William T. Russell Jr., David Elbaum, Jonathan T. Menitove, Nicholas L. Ingros and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett on brief for Professors Danielle Allen and Meira Levinson, amici curiae; Yahonnes Cleary, Erin J. Morgan, Alexander F. Atkins, Carly Lagrotteria, David Fu and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison on brief for National Council for the Social Studies, amicus curiae; Andrew M. Troop, Jeffrey P. Metzler and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on brief for National League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, and American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, amici curiae; Robert M. Kline, Kristin A. Taylor, Carlos F. Ortiz, Michael W. Weaver, Dana McSherry, Annabel Rodriguez, McDermott Will & Emery, Jose Perez, Francisca D. Fajana, Miranda Galindo and LatinoJustice PRLDEF on brief for LatinoJustice PRLDEF, et al., amici curiae; Gilda Daniels, Jessica Alcantara, Ky’Eisha Penn, Advancement Project, Janette Louard, Anthony Ashton, Victor L. Goode, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jeremy Karpatkin, Raqiyyah Pippins, Florence Bryan, Danielle Pingue, Saul P. Morgenstern, Jonathan Green, Peter L. Schmidt, Javier Ortega and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP on brief for Advancement Project and NAACP, amici curiae; Nowell D. Bamberger, Leila Mgaloblishvili, Tony J. Russo and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton on brief for Generation Citizen and Mikva Challenge, amici curiae; Yelena Konanova, Jordan W. Garman and Selendy & Gay on brief for Professor Martha Minow, amicus curiae; Michael M. Epstein, Julie K. Waterstone and Amicus Project at Southwestern Law School on brief for Samantha M. Dennis, et al., amici curiae; S. Elaine McChesney, Robert E. McDonnell, Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Michael A. Hacker and Morgan Lewis & Bockius on brief for Providence Youth Student Movement, et al., amici curiae; Jeffrey A. Simes, Allison R. Klein and Goodwin Procter LLP on brief for National Association for Media Literacy Education, et al., amici curiae; Andrew J. Ceresney, Jillian L. Trezza, Amy C. Zimmerman, Erik Rubinstein and Debevoise & Plimpton on brief for The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, et al., amici curiae (Docket No. 20-2082) (Jan. 11, 2022).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.