[2] The court would look at the case several times over the next 12 years before it relinquished jurisdiction, but the underlying problems with the school funding system remain to this day.

[9] Represented by Bricker & Eckler LLP, the coalition named the state, the Ohio Board of Education, its superintendent, and the Ohio Department of Education as defendants in the suit, which alleged that the funding system did not meet the constitutional standard for thoroughness or efficiency and presented an exhaustive body of evidence demonstrating that the system produced unequal, inefficient, and inadequate results.

Senate President Pro Tempore Richard Finan said that a ruling for the plaintiffs would be a "worst-case scenario" for the legislature because any solution put forward would be challenged as well while William L. Phillis, the director of the coalition, cast the decision as one between educating children for a rapidly evolving world or letting them fall behind.

Meanwhile, Justice Deborah L. Cook was adamant that the court should not be involved in school funding decisions and "never budged from that position," but neither side had made that claim.

Although formal deliberations had lasted about only half an hour, the justices continued to discuss the case one on one, as Sweeney tried to coax Moyer and Stratton into the majority.

For the minority, Moyer's dissent acknowledged problems with school funding but questioned whether they actually violated the state constitution[19] and argued that they were matters for the legislature to handle.

George Voinovich, Senate President Richard H. Finan and House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson called a press conference to denounce the ruling.

Voinovich suggested that his administration might defy the decision,[14] and he classified the ruling as "judicial activism" and "a thinly veiled call for a massive, multi-billion tax increase.

"[20] Editorial boards at the largest papers in the state joined in, perhaps prodded by the governor's aides[14] who argued that the decision put too much power in the hands of an unknown rural judge,[21] echoing complaints by Republican Party lawmakers.

[24] The Cincinnati Enquirer went as far as calling for a constitutional amendment that would trump the ruling, saying that otherwise, "education policy for 11 million Ohio residents will be dictated in a rural flyspeck on the state map.