Facts
The appellant, resident in Germany, and the Municipal Council of Herisau as respondent dispute, in the subject matter of social assistance, a procedural requirement. The lower court, the Higher Court of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, had found in its decision of 15 April 2019 (CAO 17 26) that the municipality had already paid the appellant CHF 7,580.- for her move to Germany under the heading '[B. GmbH] '. There was no entitlement to reimbursement of CHF 4,352.50 for private assistance services and car journeys.
By appeal of 23 May 2019, the appellant challenged this decision before the Federal Supreme Court and filed an application for legal aid. She did not address the reasoning of the cantonal decision, but referred to earlier submissions and requested a main hearing before the Federal Supreme Court as well as the questioning of witnesses. She did not allege any violation of constitutional rights and did not show to what extent the decision was arbitrary or otherwise unconstitutional. She requested the subsequent submission of 'missing documents' after the expiry of the appeal period.
The question to be examined was whether the appeal satisfied the statutory requirements for reasoning.
Considerations
For appeals against decisions issued in application of cantonal law, the relevant considerations of the cantonal decision must be set out clearly and in detail, showing which constitutional rights are said to have been violated and how (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA; BGE 135 V 94 E. 1; 134 V 53 E. 3.3; 134 II 244 E. 2.2; 133 IV 286 E. 1.4).
The appeal brief itself must show which points are contested and why the contested decision is objected to. A reference to earlier submissions is inadmissible in light of the duty to state reasons (BGE 138 IV 47 E. 2.8.1; 134 I 303 E. 1.3; 133 II 396 E. 3.1).
The appellant did not engage with the findings of the lower court and did not allege any violation of constitutional rights. The reasoning therefore does not satisfy…