Repeated failure of similar lawsuits isn’t stopping yet another group from suing over Illinois’ notoriously inequitable method of funding public schools. As mentioned in a  story in the Post earlier this week, the Chicago Urban League  is seeking to dismantle the system, but with a different legal strategy than failed legal battles in the past.

This time, plaintiffs will focus largely on civil liberties arguments, claiming that minorities are often on the short end of the funding equation, given that schools are largely underwritten by disparate property tax receipts.

The fresh strategy probably has a lot to do with the fact that Illinois courts have repeatedly ruled against school spending suits, determining that school spending disparities are for lawmakers –not judges — to sort out.

The latest Illinois lawsuit also breaks with the common pattern nationwide over the past decade.

Time and again states have been sued not mainly over the issue of whether schools are funded equitably, but adequately. And in Kansas, Arkansas, Wyoming and elsewhere, judges have sided with plaintiffs, finding that schools simply lack the funds they need to give kids a good crack at success. Many courts have been persuaded by the testimony of consultants like John Augenblick, who use controversial spending models to project exactly how much a school system needs.

But as anyone who follows education in Missouri knows, those arguments don’t always prevail. Last August, Cole County Judge Richard Callahan rejected a suit brought by 200 school districts who has sought as much at $1.3 billion in additional spending. The ruling rejected the argument that spending must be equal, while deferring to the Legislature on the argument of whether spending is adequate.

But race wasn’t singled out as an issue in the in the failed Missouri suit. In coming months, we’ll see if that tactic works where others have failed in Illinois.