# Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans > Idaho Supreme Court · March 18, 1993 · 123 Idaho 573 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534599 ## Case - **Full name:** IDAHO SCHOOLS FOR EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, an Unincorporated Association of Superintendents of Schools; Moscow School District # 281; Cambridge School District # 432-J; Lapwai School District # 341; Mullan School District # 392; Potlatch School District # 285; Whitepine School District #284; Kendrick Joint School District # 283; Kootenai School District # 274; Cascade School District # 422; St. Maries Joint School District # 41; Orofino Joint School District # 171; Grangeville Jt. School District # 241; Culdesac Joint School District # 342; Genesee Joint School District # 282; Highland-Craigmont Jt. Sch. Dist. # 305; Bruneau-Grandview Jt. Sch. Dist. # 365; Dietrich School District # 314; American Falls School District # 381; Rockland School District # 382; Valley School District # 262; Challis Joint School District # 181; Horseshoe Bend School District # 73; West Jefferson School District # 253; Council School District # 13; Midvale School District # 433; Garden Valley School District # 71; Richfield School District # 316; Cottonwood Joint School Dist. # 242; Brian Silflow and Ganel Silflow, by and Through Their Parents, Dale and Patti Silflow, Husband and Wife; Donald Paul Crea, by and Through His Father, Gary Crea; Nathan Noah, Holly Noah and Jessie Noah, by and Through Their Parents Kate and Randy Noah, Husband and Wife; Andy Cook, by and Through His Father Larry Prally; On Behalf of Themselves and All Other School People of the State of Idaho Similarly Situated; And Harry E. Davey, William H. Jones, Gainford Mix, Bob Clyde, Werner Branner and Gary Crea, Citizens and Taxpayers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Idaho Education Association, Plaintiffin-Intervention-Respondent, v. Jerry L. EVANS, in His Capacity as the Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction & as an Ex Officio Member of the Idaho State Board of Education; Cecil D. Andrus, in His Capacity as Governor of the State of Idaho; The Legislature of the State of Idaho, by and Through Michael D. Crapo as President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Tom Boyd as Speaker of the House; The Idaho State Board of Education, by and Through Gary Fay, Roberta Fields, Diane Bilyeu, Coleen Mahoney, J. Ray Cox, Karl Shurtliff, and Keith Hinckley, as Members of the Idaho State Board of Education, Defendants-Respondents; Jonathan FRAZIER, Rebecca Frazier, Jennifer Frazier, and Robert Frazier, Minors, by Their Next Friends, John and Robin Frazier; Amy Clayton, Matt Clayton, Anna Clayton, and Kevin Clayton, Minors, by Their Next Friends Larry and Bonnie Clayton; Jacob Putnam, Andrew Putnam, Amy Putnam, Leah Putnam, Melissa Putnam, and Matthew Putnam, Minors, by Their Next Friends Lawrence and Janet Putnam; Kyle Kinghorn, Matt Kinghorn, Layne Kinghorn, Janeen Kinghorn, Karen Kinghorn and Michael Kinghorn, Minors by Their Next Friends Brent and Donna Jean Kinghorn; Ada County Jt. School Dist. # 2; Bannock County School Dist. # 25; Snake River School Dist. # 52; Blackfoot School District # 55; Shelley Joint School District # 60; Bonneville Joint School District # 93; Nampa School District # 131; Caldwell School District # 132; Middleton School District # 134; Preston Joint School District # 201; Emmett Joint School District # 221; Jefferson County Joint School # 251; Jerome Joint School District # 261; Post Falls School District # 273; Madison School District # 321; Sugar Salem Jt. School District # 322; Minidoka County Jt. School Dist. # 331; Twin Falls School District # 411; And Buhl Joint School District # 412, Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Blaine County School District # 61; Danielle Luber, Kristin Luber and Sarah Luber, by and Through Their Parents, Stephen and Lorie Luber; John Reese and Ellen Reese, by and Through Their Parents, Ron and Susie Reese; Heidi Poehling, Molly Poehling and Amy Poehling, by and Through Their Parents Mike and Sharon Poehling; Brady Roark, Jennifer Roark and Hailey Roark, by and Through Their Parents, Keith and Laurie Roark; Kimberly Mecham, Camille Mecham, Aubree Mecham and Morgan Mecham, by and Through Their Parents Milo and Diane Mecham; Thomas Ryan Healy, by and Through His Mother Christina Van Beuren, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other School Children Residing in and Attending School in Blaine County; And Stephen Luber, Lorie Luber, Ron Reese, Susie Reese, Mike Poehling, Sharon Poehling, Keith Roark, Laurie Roark, Milo Mecham, Diane Mecham, and Christina Van Beuren, Citizens and Taxpayers, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Respondents, v. the IDAHO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; Jerry L. Evans, in His Capacity as Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction and as an Ex-Officio Member of the Idaho State Board of Education; And the State of Idaho, Defendants-Respondents, and Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity, Et Als., (See Title Above for Et Als.), Defendants-In-Intervention-Cross Complainants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Independent School District of Boise City, Defendant-In-InterventionRespondent; IDAHO SCHOOLS FOR EQUAL EDUC. OPPORTUNITY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Idaho Education Association, Plaintiffin-Intervention-Respondent, v. Jerry L. EVANS, Et Al., DefendantsRespondents; Jonathan FRAZIER, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Blaine County School District # 61, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, v. the IDAHO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Et Al., DefendantsRespondents, and Idaho Schools for Equal Educ. Opportunity, Et Al., Defendants-In-Intervention-Cross Complainants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Independent School District of Boise City, Defendant-In-Intervention-Respondent - **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court - **Decided:** March 18, 1993 - **Citations:** 123 Idaho 573; 850 P.2d 724; 1993 Ida. LEXIS 81 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McDEVITT - **Judges:** Bistline, McDevitt, Bakes, Johnson, Trout - **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534599 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that it was court's duty to interpret constitutional "thoroughness" requirement, but adopting standards promulgated by the executive branch - stating that "the uniformity requirement in the education clause requires only uniformity in curriculum, not uniformity in funding" - explaining that statutory right to "sue and be sued” affords school districts broad powers to pursue litigation - applying intermediate standard of review to equal protection challenge under state constitution ## Opinion text McDEVITT, Chief Justice, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the opinion of the Court, except for that portion of its discussion *586 appearing under part 2(b). It is there that the Court announces that “[w]e have determined that it is time to partially abandon our case by case determination of whether a particular right asserted is fundamental.” Idaho Schools For Equal Educ. Opp. v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 581 , 850 P.2d 724, 732 (1993). Further, the Court holds “that the ‘fundamental rights’ found in our state constitution are those expressed as a positive right.” Idaho Schools, 123 Idaho at 581 , 850 P.2d at 732 . Finally, the Court further adds that “[rjights which are not directly guaranteed by the state constitution may be considered to be fundamental if they are implicit in our State’s concept of ordered liberty.” Idaho Schools, 123 Idaho at 582 , 850 P.2d at 733 . The Court’s equal protection analysis stems from a narrow issue: whether education is a fundamental right under the Constitution of the State of Idaho, and, thus, entitled to the strict scrutiny level of review. Ultimately, the Court held that the holding of Thompson v. Engelking, 96 Idaho 793, 805 , 537 P.2d 635, 647 (1975), that being education is not a fundamental right, controlled the question. Idaho Schools, 123 Idaho at 580, 582 , 850 P.2d at 731, 733 . Judicial opinions “must be considered and construed in the light of the rule that they are authoritative only on the facts on which they are founded.” Bashore v. Adolf, 41 Idaho 84, 88 , 238 P. 534, 534 (1925). Furthermore, when this Court has commented on the Idaho Constitution in an opinion, we have held the comments to be “pure dicta” where the Constitution did not “play[] a role in the ultimate decision of the court.” Petersen v. State, 87 Idaho 361, 365 , 393 P.2d 585, 587 (1964). In the present case, the Court’s restructuring of well-established Idaho equal protection law simply does not play a role in its ultimate holding. Thus, the Court’s above-quoted holdings are dicta, and, consequently, “[t]his Court is not bound by such dic ta....” City of Weippe v. Yarno, 96 Idaho 319, 323 , 528 P.2d 201, 205 (1974), citing Petersen, 87 Idaho 361 , 393 P.2d 585 (1964); Long v. State Ins. Fund, 60 Idaho 257 , 90 P.2d 973 (1939); and Bashore, 41 Idaho 84 , 238 P. 534 (1925). Instead of adhering to the resolution of the narrow issue before it, the Court has attempted to pen a “bright-line” rule for future fundamental right analyses. The proper course for this Court to take is to restrain itself from offering generalizations about the law, and to wait for the issue to present itself through oral argument, briefing, a lower court ruling, and proper preservation of the issue. Specifically, this Court should wait for a case to present itself wherein a fundamental right is contended, reach a holding, and apply the holding to that particular alleged fundamental right. It is simply not proper for this Court to reach holdings that are not required by the issues on which the opinion is founded. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534599. Public record. Not legal advice.