The Indiana Supreme Court has rendered a decision in the school finance case of Bonner v. Daniels. Short version: Students won a pretty major decision.

Essentially this round was over standing and justiciability in court. What was not decided was the liability of the state in this case. That issue was remanded so a final decision on the merits is yet to come.  But, in the larger picture the standing and justiciability issues are pretty important decisions as it puts Indiana in line with many other states that allow for such challenges to school funding policies.

A little background. Indiana is a foundation formula state with a complexity index, but their foundation formula has fallen increasingly out of use in lieu of a Guaranteed Minimum Revenue formula. Also, the Foundation Formula does not cover everything, so school buildings, school technology, school busing and some other stuff must be covered through local property taxes. For more background see this presentation by my colleague Rob Toutkoushian. 

In the case, the court found that Bonner had standing to represent the class of individuals that are affected by Indiana's school funding policies. Further, the court found that redressibility (the legislature may do nothing as a result of this case) was also not a concern as it is the court's job to declare rights under the law, whether or not such declarations force action on the part of other branches of government. The Court even cited Marbury v. Madison on this principle. Finally, the court found that Governor Daniels, Superintendent Reed (who has announced her retirement), and the State Board of Education were properly named as defendants. As to justiciability, the court found that it could reasonably interpret the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution and that doing so would not be an essentially legislative function.

Now, the case heads back down to determine whether Bonner can prove the Indiana General Assembly fulfilled its duties under the Education Clause. Whatever the lower court decides, look for it to be back at the Indiana Supreme Court in a couple years. Given their language in this case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Court rule in the plaintiff's favor.