John Fensterwald writes for EdSource that, although “Martin Jenkins received wide praise” when Governor Gavin Newsom appointed him to the Supreme Court, “attorneys who had sought to persuade the courts to be allies in demanding more money for California schools had a different, more muted take on the appointment, tied to a particular ruling.”
The referenced case is Campaign For Quality Education v. State of California, where Justice Jenkins wrote a 2016 published opinion for a 2-1 panel of First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal, rejecting claims that, as described in the opinion, “the Legislature is currently violating its [state] constitutional obligations to ‘provide for’ and ‘keep up and support’ the ‘system of common schools’ by its current educational financing system.” The court concluded that “the constitutional sections leave the difficult and policy-laden questions associated with educational adequacy and funding to the legislative branch.” (Campaign for Quality Education v. State of California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 896, 903.)
The Supreme Court denied review, but three justices — Jenkins’s likely future colleagues Goodwin Liu and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, and Ming Chin, whom Jenkins is slated to replace — recorded votes to grant. Liu and Cuéllar additionally took the rare step of writing extended statements explaining their dissenting votes.
There is no suggestion in the article that Jenkins’s opinion will spur opposition to his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, one lawyer for the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the case is quoted as saying that, if Jenkins is presented with another similar case, “I would hope that Justice Jenkins would take the opportunity to revisit his decision,” and a law professor who disagreed with the opinion nonetheless said it was “carefully written and thoughtful.”
Related:
Two denials of review, five separate statements, in education cases
Jenkins confirmation hearing scheduled for Nov. 10, after next oral arguments
