Trending
CHARLESTON – A majority of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals sided Friday with the state Board of Education and upheld its independence from having its education rules subject to up or down votes by the Legislature.
In a 4-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court granted a motion for a writ of mandamus sought by the Board of Education and State Superintendent of Schools Michele Blatt against the Secretary of State's Office after it refused to publish a newly adopted school transportation policy.
This refusal stemmed from the state board's intentional non-compliance with House Bill 2755, a bill passed by the Legislature requiring all administrative rules created by the board to be submitted to the Legislature for prior review, amendment, or rejection.
Delivering the opinion of the majority of the state's highest court, Justice J.L. Kirkpatrick said the court's ruling was consistent with a 1988 decision by the Supreme Court inWest Virginia Board of Education v. Hechler, which determined that a similar law passed in 1983 was unconstitutional.
"We conclude that this Court has previously decided the issue presented in this case and held that a statute enacted by the Legislature that required the Board to submit its rules to the Legislature for review constituted an interference with the Board's rule-making power and was therefore unconstitutional," Kirkpatrick wrote. "Finding no reason to depart from our prior decision on this issue, we, therefore, grant the requested writ of mandamus."
HB 2755 requires that all legislative rules enacted by the board must first be authorized by the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability (LOCEA). The proposed rules would then be submitted to the full Legislature for review, which could result in approval, amendment or rejection.
State education officials filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State's Office on Oct. 3, 2025, after the Secretary of State's Office rejected submitted Policy 4334 in May 2025 - dealing with regulations for public school transportation - for not being in compliance with HB 2755.
In his opinion, Kirkpatrick said that rulemaking by the state board is an integral component of the "general supervision" of state schools under Article XII, Section 2 of the West Virginia Constitution.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in September, the Attorney General's Office, arguing on behalf of the Secretary of State's Office, argued that HB 2755 was different than previous attempt in the 1980s to wrest education rule-making authority away from the state board. But the majority of the court deemed these differences "inconsequential."
Kirkpatrick said that the practical effect of HB 2755 remains identical to the 1988 statute: It subjects every state board rule to mandatory legislative review, approval, amendment, or rejection before enactment.
"... In Hechler, we did not find that only a complete prohibition on the Board's rulemaking authority was unconstitutional; instead, we held that any statutory provision that interferes with the Board's rulemaking is unconstitutional," Kirkpatrick wrote.
In both 1989 and 2022, the Legislature adopted joint resolutions to place on general election ballots constitutional amendments to give education rule-making approval to the Legislature, but voters rejected both. In a statement, the state board thanked the Supreme Court for further clarifying its legal authority.
"The West Virginia Board of Education is grateful to the West Virginia Supreme Court for its decision to uphold the will of the voters and the State Constitution, which grants the State Board of Education authority over the rulemaking and oversight of education policy," according to the statement. "The WVBE will continue its important work of providing leadership, oversight and support to the education system and children in West Virginia."
Justice Bill Flanigan recused himself from the case, replaced by former Justice Beth Walker. Justice Charles Trump dissented, arguing that the Legislature possesses the constitutional authority to establish procedures governing the rulemaking authority of the state board.
"The question before the Court is not whether legislative review represents sound educational policy or whether a different rulemaking arrangement would better serve the State's public schools. Those are policy questions for the Legislature. Instead, this Court's responsibility is to determine whether the challenged amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act violate the West Virginia Constitution. Rather than continue to perpetuate Hechler's flawed constitutional premise, I would find that they do not."