California Judge Declines to Freeze School Facility Funding as Equity Lawsuit Heads to Trial

OAKLAND, Calif. — An Alameda County Superior Court judge has denied a request to temporarily halt billions of dollars in state school construction funding, allowing the money to keep flowing while a lawsuit challenging the fairness of California's funding formula moves toward trial.

Judge Patrick McKinney ruled that pausing distribution of the funds — approved under Proposition 2, the $10 billion school construction bond voters passed in 2024 — would cause harm on both sides of the dispute, and that stopping the money from flowing could itself hurt students awaiting facility upgrades. But in a six-page order, McKinney also found the plaintiffs have a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits of their claim that the funding system violates the equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2025 by the civil rights law firm Public Advocates on behalf of 17 students, parents, teachers and three community organizations, argues that California's school modernization funding formula systematically shortchanges low-wealth districts. Because the state requires districts to raise 40% of modernization costs locally before receiving a 60% state match, wealthier districts that can pass larger bonds receive a disproportionate share of state funding, according to the suit.

Plaintiffs cited conditions in low-wealth districts including toxic mold, failing HVAC systems, and classrooms reaching 85 degrees; in the Lynwood Unified School District, the suit says 60 classrooms leaked during last year's rainy season. In Parlier, one of the plaintiff districts, officials have identified $90 million in facility needs but secured only $14 million in funding.

State attorneys representing the agencies that oversee the funding program opposed the request for an injunction, arguing plaintiffs had not shown they were likely to succeed on the merits or that the harm of continuing to distribute funds outweighed the harm of freezing them.

John Affeldt, managing attorney for Public Advocates, said he was encouraged that the judge found the claim serious enough to proceed to trial.

The case, formally captioned Miliani R., et al. v. State of California, is expected to go to trial as soon as early 2027. It echoes the landmark Serrano v. Priest litigation, also brought by Public Advocates, which restructured how California funds school operations roughly 50 years ago — though that case did not address capital and facilities spending.

The case is Miliani R., et al. v. State of California, Alameda County Superior Court case number 25CV150626. Case docket: https://trellis.law/case/25cv150626/r-et-al-vs-state-california-et-al