Court Hearing on Students’ Right to a Quality Education
Members of the Kentucky Student Voice Team addressed reporters following a court hearing in Frankfort on May 13, 2025. The central issue at the hearing revolved around the students’ right to sue for improvements to the public education system, potentially marking the beginning of a protracted legal battle against state officials that echoes a significant historical case.
Legal Proceedings in Franklin Circuit Court
During nearly two hours of arguments, Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd listened to the perspectives from both sides. The student representatives, including members of the Kentucky Student Voice Team, argued that they deserve access to high-quality public education and possess the legal standing to pursue their case. In contrast, the office of Republican Attorney General Russell Coleman contended that the claims presented by the students indicated a “metaphysical” injury, suggesting they lacked the standing required to initiate a lawsuit.
Key Decisions Awaiting Judge Shepherd
Judge Shepherd now faces the critical decision of whether to grant the attorney general’s motion to dismiss the case or permit the students’ claims to continue. He is also tasked with reviewing a similar motion from House Speaker David Osborne and Senate President Robert Stivers, the two leading Republicans in the Kentucky General Assembly who are named as defendants in this action.
Background of the Kentucky Student Voice Team
The Kentucky Student Voice Team, consisting of approximately 100 members statewide, is a nonprofit organization that emerged from the Prichard Committee. This group, founded in the 1980s, mobilized community support for education reform in Kentucky. The KSVT’s legal approach cites the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling in the landmark case of Rose v. Council for Better Education, often referred to as the Rose decision. This historic 1989 ruling instigated extensive changes to Kentucky’s public education framework.
The Impact of the Rose Decision
In the aftermath of the Rose decision, the General Assembly enacted a penny increase in the sales tax in 1990 to finance the Kentucky Education Reform Act. At that time, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for Kentucky students to be granted an equitable opportunity to receive an adequate education. The Rose ruling also set a precedent, prompting similar legal actions in other jurisdictions.
Allegations Against the State and Educational Bodies
In January, the students initiated their lawsuit against the state and members of the General Assembly, asserting that the state has failed to uphold its educational obligations as mandated by the Kentucky Constitution and prior court rulings. They allege that state authorities, including the Kentucky Board of Education and the Department of Education, have not ensured that the educational system is compliant with constitutional requirements.
Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss
As the state’s representative in this case, Attorney General Coleman filed a motion in February seeking to dismiss the KSVT’s complaint. Coleman’s argument hinged on the assertion that the students sought to have the court undertake a role that the Rose decision denied—namely, to supplant the General Assembly’s authority in establishing “appropriate legislation” for an efficient educational system.
Legal Arguments from Both Sides
Coleman’s office pointed out that the remedies the plaintiffs were seeking were beyond the court’s jurisdiction. He maintained that the students had not adequately demonstrated individual standing nor joined necessary parties in the lawsuit. During cross-examination, Aaron Silletto from the attorney general’s office stated that previous court rulings required specific evidence of individual harm to substantiate claims. He insisted that the students’ comprehensive complaint, which detailed various alleged failings in Kentucky’s educational system, did not specify how those shortcomings uniquely impacted the plaintiffs.
Counterarguments on Behalf of the Students
In response, Michael Abate, representing the students, contended that the denial of constitutional rights can, in itself, be viewed as a significant injury. The students claimed they had been deprived of critical educational opportunities, including the absence of initiatives that encourage critical thinking or engagement in complex discussions. Abate argued, “The loss of a constitutional right is an injury.”
Judge Shepherd’s Considerations
Judge Shepherd, who previously represented the Prichard Committee in the foundational Rose case, expressed his belief that education should not merely be seen as an individual pursuit but as a public good benefiting the entire community. This perspective adds weight to the students’ argument for standing.
Legislative Immunity Claims
House Speaker Osborne and Senate President Stivers are seeking dismissal from the lawsuit, with their legal counsel, Eric Lycan, asserting that legislative immunity protects them, based on prior court rulings regarding constitutional challenges to legislative actions. In a statement, Lycan emphasized the legislature’s commitment to the constitutional obligation of providing educational opportunities, suggesting a willingness to overhaul the educational system if the court deems the current structure unconstitutional.
Press Conference by Kentucky Student Voice Team
Following the court proceedings, members of the KSVT convened a press conference, highlighting the broader aspirations linked to their case. They underscored that their focus transcends merely winning a legal battle, urging stakeholders invested in public education to join their cause for transformative change.
A Call to Action for Educational Reform
KSVT member Ivy Litton articulated the urgency of their mission, stating, “Our leaders have a choice to make—continue to ignore the glaring issues in our public schools that are threatening to destroy them or use this once-in-a-generation opportunity to effect lasting change for the betterment of Kentucky students.” Litton expressed optimism, noting that Kentucky has a historical precedent of leading the nation in academic achievement and can reclaim that status.
Location of the Hearing
Due to recent flooding in downtown Frankfort, the court hearing was relocated to the Kentucky Court of Appeals building on Chamberlin Avenue.
