Ohio Court Strikes Down State School Voucher Program

Forbes

26-06-2025

Who gets a piece of this pile?
Ohio is now one more state in which taxpayer-funded school vouchers have been struck down by a court. On June 24, Judge Jaiza Page of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgements against Ohio's EdChoice program and for a coalition of over 100 public school districts and parents.
Ohio's EdChoice program followed a common pattern in the establishment of taxpayer-funded school choice programs. It launched in 2005, with its budget limited and its use targeted to students in low-achieving schools, but it didn't stop there.
Ohio's earlier forays into taxpayer-funded vouchers had been challenged before, with Page particularly noting Simmons-Harris v. Goff, a challenge to a voucher program set up for Cleveland schools. The decision issued in May 1999 found that since the program was funded at such a low level that it could not affect the state's ability to meet its constitutional obligation to fund public schools.
Additionally, the Goff decision involved a program that handed money directly to families, not to private religious schools.
EdChoice launched within those very specific restrictions in place. But the pattern for school choice programs is to start small, then keep expanding. In 2024, the program was expanded to cover all students. According to state government figures, Ohio's taxpayer-funded voucher programs cost almost $1 billion in 2024, a massive increase over their original cost. The court found that changes in the program have carried it past constitutional lines.
The defendants appealed to Goff for support, particular against the charge that EdChoice created two separate school systems in Ohio, but Page did not see the decision their way.
Though the Defendants argue that Goff hinged on the fact that the school voucher program at issue did not actually create any schools, the Court disagrees with this interpretation. Goff recognized the history and value of private schools but cautioned that their success should not come at the expense of public education, nor should the state be allowed to finance a system of nonpublic schools.
In other words, Page finds in Goff a set of restrictions on what a constitutional voucher program may or may not do.
To be constitutional, the program should issue the money to the families, but EdChoice currently pays directly to the private schools. Further, Page argues that Goff dealt with private schools that were required to follow anti-discrimination rules.
Chartered non-public schools participating in the EdChoice program are not subject to anti-discrimination laws, giving them complete control over whether to enroll a prospective student, and allowing them to turn students away based on their religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In addition, the chartered non-public school, not the student or parent, applies to the state for an EdChoice voucher. By bestowing participating private religious schools with complete control over prospective students' participation, the 'school choice' here is made by the private school, not 'as the result of independent decisions of parents and students.'
Page's summary of the defendants' argument is blunt:
The idea that EdChoice establishes scholarships, not a system of schools, and that it funds students, not private schools, is mere semantics.
The plaintiffs also argued that the voucher program was taking money that should be directed to public schools. The defendants were not helped in their argument by House Speaker Matt Huffman. He declared that continuing to fund the phase in of Ohio's Fair School Funding Plan public school funding fix was 'unsustainable,' as reported by the Ohio Capital Journal. As pointed out by former Ohio House Education Committee Chair Stephen Dyer, the legislature increased education spending by $633 million, with 70% of that increase going to private schools, even though those schools only serve 15% of Ohio's students.
As Page summarizes the point, 'the General Assembly chose to expand their system of private school funding by about the same amount as Ohio's public schools lost through the General Assembly's failure to fully fund the FSFP.' Such a system, Page ruled, is a clear violation of Article VI Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.
Page also agreed with the plaintiff's argument that EdChoice violates the constitution by giving public taxpayer dollars to private religious organizations. The plaintiffs offered a Free Exercise defense, arguing that the constitutional language restricts the free exercise of religion as laid out in the First Amendment, but Page finds that there is no Free Exercise issue because 'no religious organization is being singled out and denied a government benefit.'
Expect that last point to come up again as the case moves through the appeals process. The Free Exercise argument has served school voucher supporters in several Supreme Court Cases, The Associated Press reports that the state is readying its appeal of the ruling. 'This decision is poorly reasoned and ignores mountains of previous school choice jurisprudence at both (the) state and federal levels,' Troy McIntosh, executive director of the Ohio Christian Education Network, the rapidly expanding education arm of the Center for Christian Virtue, told the AP.
Meanwhile, Page writes 'in recognition that this decision may cause significant changes to school funding in Ohio and the high likelihood that the parties will immediately appeal, the judgment in this case shall be stayed.' Ultimately, this case will reestablish what boundaries taxpayer-funded voucher programs must observe in Ohio.