麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

The Wyoming Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the state to begin distributing money for its expansive and controversial universal school voucher program, concluding a district judge erred when he blocked the release of public funds nearly a year ago.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices found that a group of parents challenging the case 鈥渇ailed to clearly show they might be irreparably and personally injured鈥� if the state began funding education savings accounts under a  by the Wyoming Legislature. Such a finding is necessary for a preliminary injunction, which Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher .

 reversed that injunction, which had barred Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder and other state officials from distributing money for the program. At the time, roughly 4,000 Wyoming families had applied for the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship, which provides $7,000 per child in public money for private education costs, including tuition and tutoring. There is no income limit to receive public dollars.

The justices sent the case back to the lower court for 鈥渇urther proceedings consistent with this opinion.鈥�

鈥淭his is a big win because the Wyoming Supreme Court made clear what we have known all along鈥攖his is not a school finance case,鈥� Degenfelder said in an emailed statement. 鈥淭his supports our case in district court, which we will continue to diligently pursue. This is also a big win for Wyoming families and students who will enjoy expanded academic freedom and school choice as the ultimate decision on the case is made.鈥� 

The Wyoming Department of Education will immediately begin reopening the voucher program, and parents will see a call for applications soon for the next school year, she told WyoFile. 

The Wyoming Education Association, which represents the state鈥檚 teachers and other educators but is not a formal union, is among the plaintiffs challenging the voucher program. In a statement released Thursday afternoon, the group said the new ruling will allow, at least for now, 鈥減ublic taxpayer funds to be spent on private schools 鈥� in conflict with the Wyoming Constitution 鈥� and not spent on the more than 95 percent of Wyoming students who attend public schools.

鈥淎nd our state鈥檚 public schools continue to be the ones who suffer,鈥� the statement continued. 鈥淩ight now, they are being told there is not enough money for student activities, athletics, music and arts programs, or nutrition services. These are programs that help students succeed academically, stay engaged in school, and remain connected to their communities.鈥�

A question of harm

The plaintiffs in the case also include a group of parents whose children attend Wyoming public schools. Several of the children receive accommodations for disabilities.. Their parents contend their children would be harmed because private schools that receive public money through the program can refuse admission to children with disabilities and are not required to provide special education services. 

Other parents involved in the lawsuit have children who identify as queer, non-binary or transgender. Those parents argued private schools would refuse to admit their children.

But in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Lynne Boomgaarden, the high court noted that the plaintiffs in the case did not intend to use the education savings account program at issue. 

鈥淭he individual plaintiffs have not removed their children from the public school system and do not intend to do so,鈥� Boomgaarden wrote. 鈥淭here is no indication in the record that they would remove their children from public school but have not done so because of the admissions policies of certain private schools. Their claim of possible irreparable injury rests on the existence of policies they have not and do not intend to encounter.鈥�

The high court also examined whether the Wyoming Education Association, along with the parents suing the state, would be collectively injured if the education savings account dollars were distributed now. 

The lower-court judge had noted the Wyoming Constitution includes an expansive right to education that benefits all citizens. Judge Froelicher relied on a 2003 case that found the education association and a separate group of parents could challenge the sale of state school lands without a public auction, according to the Supreme Court ruling. 

This matter is different, Boomgaarden wrote, because the dollars for education savings accounts come from the state鈥檚 鈥済eneral fund and do not affect the school funding model or the permanent school fund.鈥�

Constitutional concerns

The courts must still decide the broader legal challenge against education savings accounts. The Supreme Court ruling only affected an injunction blocking the allocation of funds amid legal proceedings.

The lawsuit alleges that the universal voucher program violates the Wyoming Constitution by 鈥渇unding private education that is not uniform and that meets none of the required constitutional standards for education.鈥� Additionally, the plaintiffs maintain the program is unconstitutional because it allows the state to spend public money on private entities beyond the necessary support of the poor. 

In Thursday鈥檚 ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court noted it has not formed a final opinion on the merits of those constitutional claims. Still, the justices did raise questions about Judge Froelicher鈥檚 legal analysis so far in the case. 

First, the high court noted that 鈥渢he Plaintiffs have failed to allege, and the district court failed to explain, how the [Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act] infringes on their right to education.鈥� 

Second, the justices raised questions about Froelicher鈥檚 conclusion that the plaintiffs would likely be able to show the law runs afoul of a constitutional prohibition against spending public money for 鈥渃haritable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state.鈥� 

鈥淲ithout demonstrating how this language is ambiguous, and absent any dispute that the Act appropriates money to the steamboat legacy scholarship program account controlled by the Superintendent, we question the court鈥檚 authority to venture beyond [that section of the constitution鈥檚] plain language,鈥� the Supreme Court ruled.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.