Yesterday's oral argument in Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. (see this entry from yesterday) is the subject of this report today in the Evansville Courier & Press. Some quotes:
INDIANAPOLIS -The fate of the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation's $20 fee now rests with the Indiana Supreme Court after representatives from both sides argued their points before the body today. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 24, 2004 10:37 AMJacquelyn Bowie Suess, Nagy's attorney, argued that the EVSC fee paid the salaries of personnel who gave instruction in the schools, which is the definition of tuition under a previous Indiana court finding.
"At a minimum (tuition) has to at least be (charging for) instruction at schools," Seuss said.
She said her case did not address charging for textbooks and said the justices didn't have to tackle that issue unless they wanted to. But a few justices asked if the fee is considered tuition, what in a school apart from extracurricular activities wouldn't be considered tuition.
Patrick Shoulders, EVSC's attorney, argued that the legislature determines which classes are necessary for graduation and that charging fees for those classes would not be constitutional.
But, he said, to have the courts decide what those essential classes are goes against separation of powers and would be "an invitation to chaos." He said the case "affects every school corporation in Indiana." * * *
The Indiana Supreme Court has a reputation of being very practical and interested in what implications their decisions might have for the state. Some of Tuesday's questions followed in that vein.
Sullivan asked both sides what would happen with the state's large budget shortfall if they were to rule against the fee.
"There will be a reduction in services and level of education that schools provide," Sullivan said.
But Suess argued that she was only asking the court to do away with EVSC's $20 fee, which would not have that great of a fiscal impact.
Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard attacked that stand and asked her to "fess up" that her "notion that this is some minimalist position" was incorrect.
Shepard said if the court would rule in Nagy's favor, it would amount to a "big league proposition" of financial shifts.