Teachers Union Lawsuits in 5 States Challenge Private School Vouchers
Since 2022, when the Supreme Court allowed Maine private schools to receive public funds, at least five lawsuits have been filed by teachers unions, in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Missouri and South Carolina. Additional legal challenges have been mounted by advocacy groups and parent organizations.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The Supreme Court's Carson v. Makin ruling, combined with growing interest among parents in alternatives to traditional public schools post-COVID, has fueled the rise of voucher programs and led to a tug-of-war in state courts between public educators and school choice advocates.
Heading into the 2025 legislative session, at least 33 states had some form of private school choice, according to the Georgetown University think tank FutureEd. Most union lawsuits have focused on voucher programs, in which public dollars pay for children to attend private schools — including religious schools — and cover other education-related expenses such as homeschooling.
In Wyoming and Utah, judges ruled in favor of the unions — at least for now. In South Carolina, the program was retooled after a court declared its previous version unconstitutional.
The Wyoming Education Association, which represents roughly 6,000 public school teachers, landed a win in July after District Court Judge Peter Froelicher granted a preliminary injunction against the state's universal voucher program. The union and nine parents had sued the state in June on grounds that the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act is unconstitutional because it violates a state regulation that it must provide a 'uniform system of public instruction.'
Related
The union decided to sue after lawmakers made the voucher program universal this spring. It was originally created with a family income cap of 250% of the federal poverty level.
'No income guidelines, in essence, means that you could be someone in Jackson who owns an $18 million property, and the state's giving you money,' said union President Kim Ame. 'Our constitution clearly says that we cannot give public money to private entities, so that's why we challenged that.'
The injunction temporarily stops the distribution of $7,000 scholarships — which are funded from a state appropriation of $30 million — until the court determines the program's constitutionality. The state has since filed an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
'I am disheartened at the court's written order granting the WEA's injunction. As one of nearly 4,000 Wyoming families, you have had your lives unnecessarily upended through no fault of your own,' Megan Degenfelder, state superintendent of public instruction, wrote in a July statement to parents.
The case is similar to the one in Utah, where a judge ruled a $100 million voucher program unconstitutional in April, following a lawsuit by the state teachers union.
Related
The Utah Education Association sued the state last year, arguing the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program violates the state constitution by diverting tax money to private schools that aren't free, open to all students and supervised by the state board of education. The Utah Supreme Court is set to consider an appeal later this year.
Lawsuits in other states are still working their way through the courts.
In July, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which represents the state's public school teachers, joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statewide voucher program that funds private education expenses for special education students.
'Even voucher programs like [this one] that are targeted to students with disabilities deprive them of crucial legal protections and educational resources,' the plaintiffs said in a legal brief.
In Missouri, the state teachers union is suing over the MOScholars program, which started as a tax credit scholarship in 2021. It currently relies on nonprofits to collect donations that are turned into scholarships. Donors can receive a tax credit amounting to 100% of their contribution, but it can't exceed more than half of their state tax liability.
This year, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe dedicated $50 million in taxpayer dollars for the scholarships and $1 million for program marketing, according to the suit. The Missouri National Education Association, which has 28,000 members, sued in June in an effort to block the appropriation.
'The General Assembly has far overstepped its authority and violated five provisions of the Missouri Constitution by using an appropriations bill to construct out of whole cloth a scheme to divert general revenues to what are essentially vouchers for the payment of private school tuition for elementary and secondary school students,' wrote Loretta Haggard, the union's attorney, in the suit.
On July 30, EdChoice Legal Advocates — part of a national nonprofit that advocates for school choice — filed a motion to join the suit as defendants. Thomas Fisher, litigation director, said in a press release that the program helps Missouri families afford an education that fits their children's needs.
'The recent expansion of the program is constitutional and will expand education freedom for low-income families and students with learning differences,' he said.
In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that its Education Trust Fund Scholarship Program was unconstitutional following a lawsuit from the state teachers union, parents and the NAACP. The program resumed this year after lawmakers revised it to funnel money from the lottery system instead of the general fund.
Unions have also been involved in school choice lawsuits in Alaska and Wisconsin. In 2023, National Education Association Alaska funded a suit over a state system that sent cash payments to the parents of homeschool students. That same year, Wisconsin's largest teachers union asked the state Supreme Court to hear its case challenging the constitutionality of the statewide voucher program, but the request was denied.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will 'continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Homelessness increased 18% last year nationwide, driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing as well as devastating natural disasters and an increase in migrants in some areas.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court. But the Donald Trump White House has said that it wants judges in the mold of the high court's two oldest justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. A new dissent that name-checks both justices is a reminder that one front-runner for any vacancy that emerges could be Judge James Ho, whom Trump previously appointed to a federal appeals court. In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.' The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis. Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression. In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.' Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.' At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show? Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.' The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.) He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.' It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Northern Virginia schools at risk of losing funding over transgender bathroom policies
Five northern Virginia school districts are at risk of losing their federal funding after they rejected the terms on an agreement with the Education Department to resolve probes into their transgender students policies. Districts representing Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William County have been placed on high-risk status, the agency said Tuesday. All federal funding sent to these school districts will now be done by reimbursement only, forcing the schools to pay their education expenses up front. More than $50 million of formula funding, discretionary grants and impact aid grants are at risk. Education Department officials said they are now proceeding with efforts to suspend or terminate federal funding to these school districts. 'States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 'The Northern Virginia School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose.' The Education Department said the schools were found to be in violation of Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex discrimination, because of their policies allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. Officials said the agency's Office for Civil Rights finished its investigation on July 25 and the school districts did not sign a proposed resolution agreement by its Aug. 15 deadline. The department's action marks a major step against the D.C. area's suburban school systems, and it is one that is most often deployed against entities with a history of financial instability, poor fiscal management, a track record of unsatisfactory performance with federal funds, and other missteps. In one instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands school system was designated by the department as a "high-risk" grantee in the late 1990s because of unsatisfactory performance. The agency has also imposed the designation on Guam and American Samoa. The Trump administration has said Title IX will now only be interpreted based on biological sex and has sought to end transgender student participation in sports teams and use of single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity. But the school districts' policies align with a landmark case in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that bolsters transgender students' rights in the state. In 2021, the Supreme Court punted on the long-winding legal battle over transgender students' rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in Gavin Grimm's case against the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia. The 4th Circuit sided with Grimm twice, ruling the transgender bathroom ban was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court's decision to not hear the case meant the appeals court's decision remained in place. The Supreme Court punted again in 2024 on an Indiana school bathrooms case, but has agreed to take up a pair of challenges over state laws barring transgender students from women's sports. Juan Perez Jr. contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
