COMPLETE VICTORY: Idaho Supreme Court upholds parental choice tax credit

The Idaho Supreme Court has upheld HB 93, the Parental Choice Tax Credit. It's not just a win for Idaho families—it is a decisive rebuke of the teachers union’s legal strategy and a clear affirmation of the Legislature’s constitutional authority to expand educational opportunity.

In a comprehensive opinion, the Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition, dismissed the case in full, rejected every major constitutional theory advanced by the petitioners, and awarded attorney fees to the State. The result is about as close to a clean sweep as constitutional litigation gets.

For Mountain States Policy Center, the ruling is also a moment of vindication. The Court adopted—often nearly verbatim—the core framework MSPC advanced from the beginning: Article IX is a floor, not a ceiling, education serves a public purpose even when parents make private choices, and the Constitution does not impose a government-run monopoly on learning.

The Court dismantled the “one system” theory

The teachers union and its allies built their case on a sweeping claim: that the Idaho Constitution allows only one education system—public schools—and that any legislative effort to support education outside that system is unconstitutional.

The Court rejected that theory outright.

In one of the most important passages of the opinion, the Court held:

“Article IX, section 1 does not impose a limitation on the legislature’s authority… Rather, it establishes a floor, and not a ceiling.”

That single sentence destroys the foundation of the petitioners’ case.

The Constitution requires the Legislature to establish and maintain “a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” But as the Court made clear, a duty to do one thing is not a prohibition on doing more. Reading Article IX as a limit, the Court explained, would improperly convert a minimum obligation into a constitutional straitjacket.

This is exactly the argument MSPC advanced in its amicus brief—and exactly the point several justices previewed at oral argument when they rejected the false choice that Idaho must either fund public schools or help families, but not both.

As the Court put it, petitioners’ interpretation was “unduly restrictive” and incompatible with the Legislature’s plenary power.

HB 93 is not a “system”—and the Court said so

Petitioners repeatedly claimed HB 93 “creates a system” of private schools in violation of Article IX. The Court was not persuaded.

The opinion makes clear that a refundable tax credit parents may choose to use for educational expenses does not establish a parallel school system, particularly where the law does not regulate schools, operate schools, or compel participation.

This aligns directly with what multiple justices observed at oral argument: calling HB 93 a “system” was an exaggeration.

The Court agreed.

Petitioners even conceded they wanted the entire law struck, including provisions for tutoring and other educational services—an admission that revealed just how ideological, rather than legally precise, their challenge had become.

Standing: the petitioners’ case nearly collapsed at the threshold

Perhaps the most damaging portion of the opinion for the teachers union is the Court’s standing analysis.

The Court held that none of the petitioners established traditional standing. Their alleged injuries, the Court found, were:

“Speculative and hypothetical and therefore insufficient to establish traditional standing.”

The opinion rejected the notion that advocacy groups can manufacture standing simply by opposing a law or spending money to sue over it:

“A party to litigation does not suffer an injury sufficient to support standing simply by expending resources to pursue the litigation.”

That finding alone could have ended the case.

Although the Court ultimately applied relaxed standing because of the importance of the constitutional question, it emphasized this was a close call—and issued a pointed warning that urgency cannot be manufactured by delay. Petitioners waited months after the law was enacted to file, then demanded emergency intervention just before the program launched.

The Court cautioned future litigants that:

“The urgency required to justify [extraordinary] relief cannot be manufactured by postponing a request for relief.”

That is a direct admonition to the strategy employed by the teachers union in this case.

The public purpose argument failed—completely

Petitioners also argued the tax credit violates the public purpose doctrine because private schools and providers might benefit.

The Court rejected that claim as well.

Education, the Court reaffirmed, is “universally regarded as a public purpose,” and the fact that private actors may incidentally benefit does not convert a law into private-interest legislation.

The Court deferred to the Legislature’s stated purpose—helping parents choose educational services that meet their children’s needs—and found nothing “arbitrary or unreasonable” about it.

Reasonable people, the Court noted, may debate the policy. But:

“Public policy considerations are primarily the business of the Legislature.”

That line should be read as another firm boundary drawn around judicial power.

Attorney fees: a clear signal this was not a close case

In one of the most telling aspects of the ruling, the Court awarded attorney fees to the State.

Attorney fee awards against challengers are not routine in constitutional cases. Here, they send an unmistakable message: this lawsuit should not have been brought the way it was.

The Tax Commission prevailed against another governmental entity, triggering mandatory fee-shifting under Idaho law. The consequence is that taxpayers will not bear the full cost of a speculative, premature challenge driven by political opposition rather than concrete injury.

That outcome underscores just how completely the petitioners lost.

Real-world reality: families are already choosing

Perhaps the most important contrast to the petitioners’ dire warnings is what is happening in the real world.

As of this ruling, more than 5,000 Idaho families have already applied for the tax credit, representing over 9,300 students.

Those families are not dismantling public education. They are parents making choices—often for tutoring, curriculum, or supplemental services—that help their children succeed.

The Court recognized what MSPC has consistently argued: parents choosing education options does not undermine public schools, and nothing in the Constitution requires the state to pretend otherwise.

A complete victory—and a constitutional reset

Justice Moeller’s special concurrence closed the door on any attempt to spin this decision as weakening public education.

The Court, he wrote, has not altered Idaho’s constitutional commitment to public schools at all. That duty remains “fixed and abiding.”

What the Court did do is restore constitutional clarity.

Idaho can maintain strong public schools and support families who choose other educational paths. The Legislature can innovate. Parents can choose. And the Constitution is not a weapon to enforce a monopoly.

This ruling is a complete victory:

• A win for families

• A win for legislative authority

• A win for constitutional restraint

• And a decisive loss for a lawsuit that asked the Court to do far more than the Constitution allows

Mountain States Policy Center was right—on the law, on the Constitution, and on the consequences of getting this wrong.

And now the Idaho Supreme Court has said so, clearly and unmistakably.