Judge says, "You
should have
sued the General Assembly"
Judge Peter Flynn, of the
Chancery Division of the
Circuit Court
of Cook County, has issued a ruling in my Driver's
Education Fee lawsuit.
That's the case in which I
challenged, in behalf of my daughter, Dawn, the $350 fee
that Buffalo Grove High
School and
School District 214 charges for its
Driver's Education Behind-the-Wheel class. (The
classroom portion of Driver's Ed is free.)
Dawn and I challenged the amount of the fee
because the $350 charge is used mostly to cover the
salary and benefits of Driver's Ed teachers.
Article X, Section 1 of the
Illinois Constitution, says, in pertinent part:
"Education in public
schools through the secondary level shall be free."
The Illinois Supreme Court,
in E. L. Segar v. The Board of Education of the
School District of the City of Rockford, 371 Ill.
418, 148 N.E. 289, decided on June 18, 1925, prohibits
the public school districts from charging students for
staffing costs. In that case, the
Illinois Supreme Court said, in pertinent part:
"A system of schools
which permits all persons of school age residing in the
district to attend classes and receive instruction in
the subjects taught, without a tuition charge, provides
free schools, and the fact that the parents of pupils
financially able to do so are required to provide their
children with text-books, writing materials and other
supplies required for the personal use of such pupils
does not change the character of the school."
The main argument by
defendant School District 214 was their "Moment of
Silence" defense: that they were just doing what the Illinois
General Assembly authorized them to do.
My claim was that the General Assembly does not have
the right to authorize anybody to violate the
constitutional rights of citizens, as interpreted by the
Illinois Supreme Court in Jorgensen v. Blagojevich,
211 Ill.2d 286, 316; 811 N.E.2d 652, 670; 2004 Ill.
LEXIS680, 49; 285 Ill. Dec. 165 (2004). That was a case
in which the General Assembly and ex-Governor
Blagojevich tried to save money by not paying judges
raises that were guaranteed to them in a provision of
the Constitution.
Here are two quotes from that case:
"No principle of law
permits us to suspend constitutional requirements for
economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons
may seem."
"Neither the
legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution even in
case of great emergency."
Judge Flynn declined to rule in favor of or
against the arguments made by either the School District
or me. Instead, Judge Flynn made up his own argument,
and ruled on his argument without allowing either side
to brief the court on his argument. ("Brief the court"
means file briefs in support or opposition to a claim,
after having an opportunity to do research on the
claim.)
Judge Flynn said that I sued the wrong parties ( the
other defendant was the State Board of Education, which
was represented by Attorney General Lisa Madigan ).
Judge Flynn said that I should have sued the Illinois
General Assembly, because they were the ones that
approved the practice of charging tuition to public
school students for Behind-the-Wheel Driver's Ed.
I disagree with Judge Flynn's decision, so I'm
appealing. I feel that Judge Flynn should have ruled
either in favor of my argument or of my opponents'
argument(s), rather than coming up with an argument of
his own and ruling on that.
My opponents may not even agree with or support Judge
Flynn's argument that the proper party to sue is the
General Assembly, so how are they going to defend that
argument on appeal?
