In St. Augustine School v. Underly, (7th Cir., Aug. 14, 2023), is the latest installment in a case that arose in 2015 and has been litigated up and down the federal and Wisconsin state court system ever since. A Wisconsin statute provides transportation benefits for private religious schools, but only for one school from a single organizational entity in each attendance district. At issue in this case is whether two Catholic schools in the same attendance district (one billing itself as a "Traditional Catholic School") were sufficiently linked that only one of them could receive the transportation assistance.
The state Superintendent had concluded that St. Augustine School could not receive benefits because another Catholic school in its attendance district was already getting them. After receiving guidance from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in December 2021 the U.S. 7th Circuit held that the Superintendent violated Wisconsin statutory law in denying transportation benefits to St. Augustine School, and so remanded the case to the district court for it to impose a remedy. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs, however, were unhappy because they wished to obtain a ruling on the federal constitutional issues involved, so they made no argument for damages under state law. The district court thus only issued a declaratory judgment in favor of St. Augustine, denying an injunction and damages. Now on appeal of that decision, the 7th Circuit said in part:
The remaining question is what to do in light of the fact that the Forros unambiguously waived their right to relief under their state-law theories. If by so doing they hoped to force us to reach the federal theories, they were mistaken. We will not allow ourselves to be manipulated into constitutional adjudication in this manner; parties do not have the right to compel a court to write what would essentially be an advisory opinion on a theory that it did not need to reach. St. Augustine IV provided plaintiffs with a clear path to recovery that they chose to forego. Litigants are held to their choices, even when the consequences are harsh. We accordingly see no error in the district court’s decision to treat their requests for damages and injunctive relief under state law as waived and to issue only a declaratory judgment....
Judge Ripple dissented, arguing that the court should reach the federal constitutional issues, saying in part:
As this case has traveled its circuitous path, a regrettable analytical fog has progressively obscured the good faith and thoughtful attempts of all actors, judges and lawyers, to resolve this case. Today, in my view, despite its best efforts, the majority, impeded by this fog, further obscures the matter by drawing the wrong conclusions from this muddied procedural history and, in the process, by departing from the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States dated July 2, 2020. I respectfully dissent.
