The state extended its promise of fiscal equity, but claimed that justice would have to wait, thanks to the devastating gap in state finance.
Rebell contends that the current state aid being provided is unconstitutional. Deferral of funding has no basis in law—the courts said four years, so four years it must be.
There are problems with bringing this back to the courts, although that is the ultimate plan. The plaintiffs asked the Court of Appeals to retain jurisdiction over the case, but the court declined to do so. That means that the case must begin from scratch. We are talking about a case that originally took ten years to wind its way through the justice system.
Rebell points out that there is no other constitutional right that is subject to fiscal constraint. We don't typically deny citizens rights because we lack the money to enforce those rights.