Utah voucher law found unconstitutional. Idaho's law is also vulnerable.
A classroom at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School in South Salt Lake is pictured on March 12, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
A district judge in Utah issued a marvelous decision on April 18, finding Utah's school voucher law to be unconstitutional. The 60-page decision was based on a variety of constitutional flaws that the Utah law shares with Idaho's recently-enacted education tax credit law. The Utah law was enacted in 2023 with $42.5 million in state funds. State funding increased by $40 million in each of the next two years.
The Utah judge said the Utah Constitution gives 'a direct command to the legislature to perform a single duty: establish and maintain the state's education systems.'' The judge continued, 'This clear expression of one duty — coupled with the absence of any general duty to provide for the education or intellectual improvement of Utahns — impliedly restricts the legislature from creating a publicly funded school or education program outside of the public school system.' In other words, Utah's Legislature is restricted from using public funds to support any form of private education.
Of interest is the fact that every member of the Idaho Legislature was sent a 'Legislative Alert' on the first day of the 2025 legislative session, warning that any scheme to use taxpayer money for private education would be violative of the Idaho Constitution in a number of respects. The alert was provided by The Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution, a group that participated in the successful lawsuit to overturn the restrictive initiative law enacted in 2021.
The alert identified the same constitutional flaw focused upon by the Utah judge — that Idaho's Constitution prohibits the funding of private and parochial education. That has been the law of Idaho ever since statehood in 1890.
The alert spelled out several other constitutional infirmities that any voucher scheme would entail, including a deliberate transgression of Idaho's strong prohibition against state support for religious education, discrimination against rural kids and Idaho religions that don't operate parochial schools, lack of accountability for taxpayer money expended on private schooling, and diminution of state money necessary to support Idaho's public school system, which has been chronically underfunded for decades.
The Utah judge's decision mentioned a number of other infirmities in the Utah law — private schools often exclude students with special needs, or condition admission upon adherence to certain religious beliefs, or fail to provide 'free' schooling as constitutionally required for taxpayer-supported education. These flaws are also inherent in House Bill 93, the subsidy bill approved by the Legislature this year.
The Idaho Legislature was clearly warned of the serious constitutional problems with House Bill 93, which will subsidize private and parochial education to the tune of $50 million in just the first year. Yet, because of massive funding from out-of-state groups that are seeking to weaken public schools across the nation, a majority of our legislators cast aside the Constitution and passed the subsidy bill. The governor lacked the courage to veto the legislation, despite overwhelming public outcry against it.
Now, as with the similar travesty in Utah, concerned Idahoans will have to resort to the courts in order to protect the wishes of Idaho's constitutional drafters. Please stay tuned.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's attacks on the rule of law threaten all Americans
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has repeatedly and persistently misused his executive authority to attack and intimidate anyone who would dare to check him. In his first few months, he has gone after the free press, encroached on the independence of Congress and the courts, stifled institutions of higher learning, fired inspectors general and others inside the federal government who could hold him accountable, and even targeted law firms that represent clients he dislikes. These abuses of power trample the values of our democracy and violate the rights of everyday Americans. When a president threatens law firms for retribution, it's an attack on the constitutional rights of all Americans to access legal counsel, voice dissent and make clear what we expect from our leaders. As attorney general of Minnesota, I know lawyers are not just spectators to the Constitution — we are its agents. We defend laws that protect people from harm. We hold bad actors accountable. We take a solemn oath to respect the courts. And when the executive branch oversteps the bounds of its authority, state attorneys general check the federal government to protect our residents' rights. Above all, we stand for the rule of law. But attacks on the rule of law have become a hallmark of the new administration. President Trump has disparaged federal judges as 'lunatics' and called for their impeachment, earning the reprimand of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has ignored court orders after illegally deporting a lawful U.S. resident without due process, treading close to charges of contempt. He has signed executive orders to punish some of the largest law firms in the country because they dared to go against him in court or take on clients he viewed as political enemies. When 'Meet the Press' recently asked the president if his job is to uphold the Constitution, he said, 'I don't know.' But that is absolutely his job: The president took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and we all watched him do it. To disregard this duty is unacceptable and alarming. These escalating attacks on courts, judges, lawyers and the rule of law are a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and to intimidate the people whose job it is to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is showing its resilience in the face of these attacks. A federal judge made it abundantly clear last week that the president's retaliation campaign against law firms is unconstitutional. In a powerful 102-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the president's executive order against Perkins Coie — a law firm that has represented Trump's opponents — an 'unprecedented attack' on our foundational principles. She issued a warning that we should all take heed of: 'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.' The ruling is a heartening decision for the rule of law. But we must stay vigilant: Trump has a boundless appetite for retaliation against anyone who sides with the truth over his lies. In addition to his attacks on Perkins Coie and other firms, last month, the president called on the Department of Justice to investigate and sanction officials from his prior administration because they had the audacity to defy him. In one executive order, Trump called Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'abusive' because he said the 2020 election was secure and accurate. We have seen what happens when the president's allies side with Trump instead of the truth and the rule of law. Even when Trump manages to escape accountability, those around him often do not. The failed campaign to overturn the accurate results of the 2020 election led to the punishment of several unethical attorneys behind it, such as John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They were held accountable by state and federal justice departments, as well as several state bar authorities, for failing to uphold their oaths as attorneys committed to the rule of law. In this challenging time, when Americans' right to choose their counsel and defend their constitutional rights is under attack, lawyers who serve the public have a critical role to play. But those who want to honor their oaths to the American public are in a difficult position — we've already seen government lawyers who stand up to the administration dismissed from their positions. We should all be ready to support them for honoring their values, and for sharing the truth of the administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law. And they should know that attorneys general across the states are standing with them, working to ensure the law applies equally to everyone. As attorneys and public servants, our loyalty must be to faithfully execute and defend the law, not bow to the bully in the White House. Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
House passes bill overhauling cannabis laws, Cannabis Control Commission
Advertisement Frustration with the slow pace of regulatory changes, headline-grabbing internal conflicts at the CCC, and a plea from the inspector general for the Legislature to intervene at the 'rudderless agency' combined last summer to get lawmakers thinking more seriously about a response. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up House Speaker Ronald Mariano recounted Wednesday how he went to Donahue last year to say 'we're going to have to fix this.' He said Treasurer Deborah Goldberg's removal of CCC chairwoman Shannon O'Brien had been dragged into court by that point, a long-running saga that has shined a light on internal strife at the CCC. That directive to Donahue led to a series of hearings and conversations that resulted in the bill before the House on Wednesday. 'He did the work. You could talk to him, and he could explain the process. It got us where we thought we had to take it away from the treasurer,' Mariano said before yielding to Donahue to give a more thorough explanation of the House's thinking around accountability at the CCC. Advertisement Today, the CCC is a five-commissioner independent body, with appointments made singularly and jointly by the governor, attorney general and treasurer, with the treasurer selecting the chair. Under the House-approved bill, the CCC would be consolidated entirely under the governor. The state's executive would appoint all three commissioners and select one of them to serve as chair (who would be the only full-time commissioner). The CCC would be 'subject to the laws applicable to agencies under the control of the governor.' Asked what makes the CCC's existing model unworkable, Mariano said it was a structural problem but gave a conflicted explanation. 'It was created by a ballot question that had no rhyme or reason to it ... there was no accountability,' he said. The speaker, who started his scrum with reporters by raising the subject of 'legislation by referendum' and the trend of advocates going around a slow-moving Legislature to make laws at the statewide ballot, added, 'We've been railing against government by referendum, and this is a perfect example why it doesn't work.' The CCC's existing structure is largely modeled on the Gaming Commission, where five full-time members with specific areas of expertise are appointed by the governor, treasurer and attorney general. But Mariano claimed Wednesday that 'the problem is they weren't written by the same people.' 'The gaming stuff was written by House people,' he said. 'The people in the marketplace wrote this bill, and they weren't interested in controlling it, in making sure there was accountability up and down the line. As a matter of fact, this was a rush to get into the market. Everyone thought they were going to get rich.' Advertisement The Mariano, who was majority leader at the time, was the lead House negotiator on the 2017 law that structured the CCC. The structure that was put in place 'This is legislation by referendum, and this is the problem, no one really focused on the writing of the ballot question on how this would be administered. And when it hit, the public had no idea what the problems were going to be and where they were going to be,' Mariano said Wednesday. Last summer, Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro's office Advertisement Mariano was not available to clarify his comments Wednesday afternoon, but a spokesperson sent a statement saying his 'main point was that the Legislature was responding to a law that was passed by a referendum, which created a new industry outside of the typical legislative process, forcing the Legislature to address a number of unknowns.' 'In order to safely and effectively carry out the will of the voters, the Legislature has been forced to revise the original language multiple times. The legislation that the House is voting on today is better because of what we have learned since 2016, and establishes a new structure, different from the one that the ballot initiative spelled out,' Mariano spokesperson Ana Vivas said. The bill the House passed Wednesday also seeks to address intoxicating hemp-based products that largely fall into a gray area of the law and between the regulatory cracks by banning their sale without a license and setting up a new framework to regulate and tax them. Hemp beverages could only be sold by retailers licensed by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to sell all alcohol and all hemp-based products would need to be registered with the CCC. 'This ban and accompanying regulatory structure will help provide guidance and clarity on hemp products, removing those which are unregulated, of unknown origin or composition, and too easily accessible to minors,' Donahue said Wednesday. The House bill adjusts the existing cap on retail licenses any one operator can hold. The current limit is three, and the House bill would raise the cap on retail licenses to six over a three-year period (increasing first to four, a year later to five and finally to six). Opponents of that idea have slammed it as a 'gift to corporate cannabis and a death sentence for local and social equity businesses.' The existing three-license caps would remain in place for cultivation and manufacturing. Advertisement On the medical side of the legal marijuana world, the bill eliminates the requirement that medical marijuana businesses be 'vertically integrated,' meaning they must grow and process all the marijuana they sell. Patients and advocates have been calling for that change for years, saying the medical-only options have become scarce across Massachusetts since cannabis was legalized for non-medical use.
