THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL. - Articles

All Content

THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 10, 2024

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: Christopher M. Wood, Nashville, Tennessee; Sophia Mire Hill, Jackson, Mississippi; Stella Yarbrough, Nashville, Tennessee; and Wendy Lecker and Jessica Levin, Newark, New Jersey, for the appellants, Roxanne McEwen, David P. Bichell, Terry Jo Bichell, Lisa Mingrone, Claudia Russell, Inez Williams, Heather Kenney, Elise McIntosh, and Apryle Young.

Attorneys 2: Justin Owen, Nashville, Tennessee; Arif Panju, Austin, Texas; and David Hodges and Keith Neely, Arlington, Virginia, for the appellees, Natu Bah, Builguissa Diallo, and Star Brumfield.

Attorneys 3: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Stephanie Bergmeyer, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jim Newsom; E. Ashley Carter; Matt R. Dowty; Robert W. Wilson; and Shanell Tyler, Assistant Attorneys General, for the appellees, Governor Bill Lee, the Tennessee Department of Education, the Tennessee State Board of Education, and Penny Schwinn, Education Commissioner.

Attorneys 4: M.E. Buck Dougherty, III, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellees, Greater Praise Christian Academy, Sensational Enlightenment Academy Independent School, Ciera Calhoun, Alexandria Medlin, and David Wilson, Sr.

Judge(s): SWINEY

This appeal concerns a lawsuit challenging the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-2601, et seq. (“the ESA Act”). A group of parents and taxpayers from Davidson and Shelby Counties (“Plaintiffs”) sued state officials (“State Defendants”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). In their operative amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the ESA Act violates the Tennessee Constitution and state law by diverting taxpayer funds appropriated for public schools in Davidson and Shelby Counties to private schools, resulting in unique harm to these localities. A group of parents with children eligible for the ESA Act (“Bah Defendants”) and another group (“Greater Praise Defendants”) (all defendants collectively, “Defendants”) intervened in defense of the ESA Act. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted on grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are not ripe for judicial review. In reaching its decision, the Trial Court found that the ESA Act has not caused the affected counties any unequal hardship. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their first, second, and sixth causes of action only. We conclude that the Trial Court erred by deciding factual disputes over the impact of the ESA Act on Plaintiffs at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs alleged enough in their amended complaint to establish standing both as parents and taxpayers. Plaintiffs’ claims also are ripe for judicial review. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Trial Court as to Plaintiffs’ first, second, and sixth causes of action and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Attachments: