Chief Justice House wrote the majority opinion, holding that the property tax and flat per pupil state grant system for public schools violated the Connecticut constitution.
At the time the case was brought, approximately 70% of school funds came from local sources, 20% to 25% from the state (in the form of a flat per pupil grant), and 5% from the federal government.
It also provided students in property-rich towns with more course offerings and library resources, expanded special education, better learning disability teachers and facilities, and many other opportunities.
It said that the wealth discrimination found among school districts differed from a traditional equal protection case because the students in property-poor towns still received an education, but of a lower quality.
In most equal protection cases, the complaining party has been absolutely denied a right, rather than the qualitative denial of the type at issue in Horton.
The Court determined that the legislation did not implement the constitutional requirement that the state provide a substantially equal educational opportunity to the youth in its free public schools.
Justice Loiselle feared that no system other than total state financing would be acceptable in light of the majority's decision in Horton.