It’s hard, even for a the grizzled newspaper dinosaurs who conduct these columns, to remember a more arrogant dismissal of what amounts to a civil rights claim than that with which Judge Leland DeGrasse rebuffed 12-year-old Daquasia and 10-year-old Rayshawn Payne in their effort to gain relief from New York City public schools. Their mother, Dianne Payne, filed in January a motion seeking vouchers for the youngest two of her five children as part of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit. She argued that the courts had already found the public schools inadequate and that her children should not be denied a quality education while the city and state bickered interminably about money. In an editorial entitled “Rayshawn’s Revolution,” we urged Governor Pataki and Attorney General Spitzer not to stand in Ms. Payne’s way, suggesting that they not challenge her motion, thus allowing Daquasia and Rayshawn to get their vouchers.

It turns out that Messrs. Pataki and Spitzer aren’t the problem. They appeared set to challenge Ms. Payne’s motion in front of Judge DeGrasse, himself a product of Catholic schools, who has presided over the CFE circus. But they were not challenging Ms. Payne’s basic right to make such a motion, even if they didn’t believe it should be granted. They had actually agreed to a timetable for filing briefs. Then, Judge DeGrasse, hastily, without explanation, and inexcusably, slammed the courthouse door in Daqua sia’s and Rayshawn’s faces. In a handwritten filing reading, in its entirety, “This application for an order to show cause is denied,” Judge DeGrasse stated that he would not even issue a pro forma order to set a hearing date.

The judge’s move is so unusual that it will leave many wondering about his motives. Even in the federal courts, where judges often hold pre-motion hearings and may try to dissuade lawyers from proceeding with motions, judges almost never deny hearings to lawyers who still opt to proceed. The practical effects of Judge DeGrasse’s denial may prove limited. Ms. Payne may still be able to get a day in court for her children by filing a separate lawsuit instead of filing a motion to link her claim to the CFE suit. But that doesn’t make Judge DeGrasse look any better. It may be that he objected to the relief – vouchers – Ms. Payne was seeking for Daquasia and Rayshawn. Or that he didn’t think it was appropriate for Ms. Payne’s lawyer to file both a motion to join the CFE case and a motion for relief at the same time. Perhaps he thought it was superfluous for Ms. Payne to join the CFE lawsuit now that most of the heavy legal lifting in that matter is already done. No one knows, because Judge De-Grasse doesn’t think Daquasia and Rayshawn deserve the least explanation. Which tells New Yorkers more than anything to date in the history of this suit what kind of game Judge DeGrasse is really playing.