Harrisburg School District, et al. v. Secretary of Education, et al. (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-33-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, HARRISBURG SCHOOL BOARD, JOSEPH C. BROWN, LINDA M. CAMMACK, KENNETH LEISTER, JUDITH C. HILL, WANDA R.D. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF RAUWSHAN WILLIAMS, RICARDO A. DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JEREMIAH STEPHENSON AND TIFFANY DAVIS, CLARICE CHAMBERS, JOY FORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF SAMANTHA WILSON, GRACE BRYANT, GLENISE COBB-WINGFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JOHNATHAN WINGFIELD AND ASIA WINGFIELD, AND CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR CHILDREN FIRST, BY DWAYNE BLOUNT AND DALE CARTER, TRUSTEES AD LITEM : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : v. : : CHARLES B. ZOGBY, SECRETARY OF : EDUCATION, COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, STEPHEN R. REED, : MAYOR OF HARRISBURG, JANE/JOHN : DOE I, JANE/JOHN DOE II, JANE/JOHN : DOE III, JANE/JOHN DOE IV,JANE/ : JOHN DOE V, POTENTIAL MEMBERS : OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR : THE HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT : : APPEALS OF: CHARLES B. ZOGBY, : SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION : Nos. 1, 2, 7, 12 & 14 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, entered January 3, 2002, at No. 550 M.D. 2000 789 A.2d 797 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ARGUED: April 8, 2003 @1MAP2002; BOARD OF CONTROL OF THE HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT @2MAP2002 AND 12MAP2002; STEPHEN R. REED, MAYOR OF HARRISBURG @7 AND 14MAP2002 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE LAMB Decided: July 22, 2003 Because I believe that Act 911 is special legislation passed in violation of Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, I respectfully dissent. In promulgating Act 91, the Legislature has singled out the Harrisburg School District for special treatment, under the pretext of testing the efficacy of a "pilot program" for distressed systems of education. The amended Section 1707-B2 targets Harrisburg in a less obvious way than the Reed Amendment,3 and as drafted, could theoretically apply to both Harrisburg and Erie, as they are the only two cities meeting the form of government and population criteria. However, I do not agree that the mere possibility that the Erie School District might find itself distressed before December of 2005 mandates against a finding that Act 91 is special legislation. Act 91's classification is no less effective in singling out the Harrisburg School District for special treatment than the Reed Amendment. It is, in my view, nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Legislature to promulgate special legislation under the guise of a general law. Were the purpose of this legislation really the remediation of failing urban school districts, such could have been achieved through the passage of 1 Act of November 22, 2000, P.L. 672, No. 91, § 9. 2 Section 1707-B of the Act of May 10, 2000, P.L. 44, No. 16, § 8.1, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 17-1701-B to 17-1716-B. 3 Section 1707-B of the Act of May 10, 2000, P.L. 44, No. 16, § 8.1, 24 P.S. §§ 17-1701B to 17-1716-B. [J-33-2003] [M.O. - Saylor, J.] - 2 general laws. The only possible purpose of Act 91 is the evasion of the constitutional limitation ran afoul of in Harrisburg Sch. Dist. v. Hickock (Hickock I), 761 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2000). As such, it must fail. By its opinion today, the majority has placed its imprimatur on legislation passed in disregard of the constitutional limitation contained in Article III, Section 32. Because I can not abide the Legislature's evasion of the constitutional limitation contained therein, I would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent. [J-33-2003] [M.O. - Saylor, J.] - 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
