Utah Fits All Scholarship ruling on hold, program can continue until Utah Supreme Court decides
SALT LAKE CITY () — A Utah judge has decided not to halt the Utah Fits All Scholarship while the case likely makes its way to the Utah Supreme Court — meaning the program can continue as normal until there's a ruling from the state's high court.
Lawyers for the state of Utah, the Utah Education Association, and the manager of the Utah Fits All, ACE, each joined a status hearing Wednesday, where the parties agreed that the case would ultimately be decided by the Utah Supreme Court.
'I will not impose a remedy at this point. I'll issue the final ruling [of all four claims], it will go up on appeal, there will be no injunction in place,' said Judge Laura Scott. 'My understanding is that would mean things would just proceed as normal…unless and until we have a decision by the [Utah] Supreme Court,' she said.
Judge Scott's April 18 ruling only decided two of the UEA's four claims, that the scholarship was unconstitutional under Articles X and XIII of the state's constitution, rendering the other two claims as moot.
Teacher salaries, scholarship families in limbo after court strikes down Utah Fits All
Judge Scott said that if there was clarity that the parties needed, they could ask for it in her new order that she plans to issue by May 15.
'It is in everyone's interest to move as expeditiously as possible into the Supreme Court,' said the lawyer for UEA, Raymay Ravindran.
'If we could have the matter presented before the Supreme Court with simply having the ruling itself stayed and have the entry of the remedy postponed until we get that guidance, that would be the state's preference,' said Scott Ryther, who represents the state.
The main question from the parties was whether scholarships could continue to be paid out for the current school year's recipients despite the ruling being deemed constitutional. The state board is also in the middle of picking a new program manager, something lawyers said was supposed to happen this week. There's also a May 1 deadline for new recipients to apply for next school year's money.
'My client wants to make sure what its obligations are under the order,' said Tyson Langhofer, who represents ACE. 'There is still a significant amount of money that needs to be paid out under the current year, because not everyone has drawn down on [their scholarship] and we want to make sure we understand what their obligations are.'
ACE has been terminated by the Utah State Board of Education and said that they're currently applying to run the program again.
Their management of the current UFA program ends May 15, Langhofer said.
Teachers also stand to lose some of their salaries that are tied up in the because the law that created the program said it had to be 'in effect' for that money to be realized.
Since 2023, funding for the scholarship has more than doubled from $40 million to over $100 million, which could reportedly fund about 10,000 students. The program offered a scholarship of up to $8,000 for eligible K-12 students, but thresholds were changed in the 2025 legislative session to $8,000 for private school, $6,000 for homeschoolers age 12-18, and $4,000 for those age 5 to 11.
'We are grateful for the court's consideration of this important issue and are glad that parents and teachers will be able to continue to rely on the law while the underlying legal and constitutional questions at issue in this case are resolved,' said Attorney General Derek Brown.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman on 'Reverse Discrimination'
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to file lawsuits over 'reverse discrimination.' The nation's highest judiciary sided with an Ohio woman who claimed that she had been passed over for a job and was subsequently demoted because she was straight. Marlean Ames, a 20-year employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed that the promotion and the job she previously held were both given to LGBTQ people. Ames had previously lost her case in trial court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In siding with Ames, the court unanimously struck down a standard that had previously required individuals identifying as part of a majority group—such as being white, male, or heterosexual—to face a higher bar in proving discrimination. The ruling will affect cases in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The 6th Circuit was one of the courts that had tasked people like Ames with showing 'background circumstances' as proof, such as an internal pattern of discrimination against her at her organization. Ames did not provide any circumstances to the appeals court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' requirement 'cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents,' since the statute's 'disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for American employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of their 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 'The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics,' the court wrote. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' In its opinion, the nation's highest judiciary vacated the lower court's ruling, remanding the case to be re-deliberated under the new standard. In 2019, Ames had applied to be bureau chief of the Ohio agency. She was interviewed by two supervisors who did not hire her for it. Two more applicants for the role were also turned away. Eight months later, Ames claimed that one of the supervisors had hired a lesbian woman she knew personally to fill the role. Ames was later removed from her post as program administrator and given the option of being demoted to executive secretary or leave the agency altogether. She chose the demotion, and was replaced by a gay man. Ames claimed that she had been discriminated against as both of the hiring supervisors were lesbian women. This story has been updated.
