Idaho Supreme Court hands major victory to school choice

In a resounding win for school choice, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected arguments against the state’s new refundable school choice tax credit, clearing the way for thousands of families to embrace education freedom.

The unanimous decision, handed down Thursday, dismissed claims by opponents that the state’s requirement to fund public schools precluded it from funding any other schools.

Thomas Fisher, litigation director and executive vice president of EdChoice, said the ruling will reverberate in similar cases in Utah, Tennessee, Wyoming and Ohio.

“We’re going to file a document with the Wyoming Supreme Court this week advising it of this decision from Idaho, and we have an argument in Wyoming next week, so I fully intend to bring it up and rely on it,” Fisher told The Lion on Friday.

“I fully expect that we’ll cite this case in all those states,” he said, noting that EdChoice is working with the Institute for Justice in several of the cases.

Fisher said he was pleased the five-member court used the adage that the obligation to fund public schools “is a floor, not a ceiling.”

“This is a basic thing. Everybody has to have an opportunity to have a good quality public education. That’s terrific. But if the Legislature wants to do more and support additional options, well, that’s great (too).”

Fisher said the ruling sends a “loud and clear message” not to overthink the issue.

“These choice programs are plainly constitutional. Quit trying to do mental backflips to make them somehow seem unlawful. It’s not that hard. This isn’t rocket science,” he said.

Choice doesn’t hurt public schools 

Opponents argued that a clause in the Idaho Constitution mandating the provision of a free public education meant the state could not also fund other options. Most states have a similar clause, yet 35 states have school choice programs, and 18 offer broad or universal school choice.

Opponents also claimed school choice would harm public schools by reducing their funding, but Fisher said Idaho’s tax credit draws from a separate pool of funds – an approach other states have used as well.

“We’re not taking money and diverting it away from public schools,” he said. “And furthermore, plenty of evidence shows that the competitive effects of private choice programs actually help public schools do better. They work harder to educate their students and provide options that parents want, so I think everybody wins in the long term.”

The Idaho Legislature approved the school choice program in February 2025, but opponents waited seven months to file their lawsuit – a delay the Supreme Court justices viewed negatively. The window to claim the tax credits opened Jan. 15, and decisions are expected in mid-March, making claims of damage to public schools premature, the justices wrote.

One justice wrote a “specially concurring” opinion, saying the petitioners “have failed to prove that the State is not capable of simultaneously maintaining a constitutionally grounded system of public schools while also assisting parents who have elected not to participate in that system.”

“In sum, nothing in our opinion has relieved the legislature of its duties,” wrote Justice Gregory W. Moeller. “While the Constitution does not prevent the legislature from considering innovations that further support and improve education throughout Idaho, it also does not prohibit lawmakers from assisting parents who choose alternatives.”

Fisher said he believes school choice opponents in Idaho and elsewhere “see public schools as this monolithic program that everybody should be part of because somehow that’s good for society, and that’s just not what I think anybody envisioned with public schools.”