The Constitutional Crossroads: Why a Scholarship Lost in Court
Picture a Utah classroom: students bustling, teachers weaving through rows, resources stretched yet resilient. Now recall the headlines swirling last week as Judge Laura Scott declared the state’s ambitious “Utah Fits All” scholarship program unconstitutional. This isn’t just another courtroom drama; it’s a battle over the deepest principles of public education, state budgets, and what it means to invest in the next generation.
The core of the ruling? Utah’s constitution—crystal clear regarding how and where public money can be spent. The “Utah Fits All” program, framed by supporters as an ‘education savings account,’ promised up to $8,000 per eligible student for private education or tuition costs. Glancing at the program, it seemed a lifeline for families wanting options beyond traditional public schools. But beneath the surface, critics—led by the Utah Education Association—warned that the program was essentially a voucher scheme, siphoning money from public coffers reserved for truly universal, non-sectarian public schooling.
Judge Scott’s opinion meticulously dissected two constitutional pillars: Article X, demanding a public education system “free from sectarian control,” and Article XIII, earmarking income tax dollars for “public education,” higher education, and those with disabilities. Despite attempt after attempt by proponents to rebrand the initiative, the judge found that none of these linguistic tricks could obscure a simple truth—the legislature can’t bypass constitutional mandates simply by changing the program’s label. A closer look reveals a fundamental question: should a state-sanctioned diversion of funds designed for all instead benefit the few?
National groups like the National Education Association and the Network for Public Education have warned for years about voucher programs undermining public school systems. According to Pew Research, nearly 70% of Americans polled in 2023 opposed using public funds for private school tuition, reflecting an understanding that public money is a social compact, not a grab bag for niche interests.
The Money Trail: Who Gets Left Behind?
Utah Attorney General’s office, still digesting the ruling, quickly signaled intentions to appeal, as did Governor Spencer Cox. Backers of “school choice” like Rep. Candice Pierucci (R-South Jordan), voiced familiar grievances—judicial activism, government overreach, alleged disregard for educational innovation. The pattern isn’t unique to Utah. From Florida to Arizona, voucher battles keep cropping up, each time raising urgent concerns about equity, transparency, and who really benefits when public dollars flow to private hands.
But dive deeper: the specifics of the Utah program matter. The “Utah Fits All” model sounded inclusive, but as Judge Scott highlighted, provisions for students without disabilities were never transparently discussed with voters or tied to critical constitutional amendments like Amendment G. In practice, this meant a significant chunk of public funds—income tax dollars legally dedicated to public schools—would be redirected, risking shortfalls for districts already grappling with teacher shortages, aging infrastructure, and ballooning classroom sizes.
“The state cannot claim it is funding public education for all while simultaneously opening back-door channels to carry those dollars elsewhere,” argues Carol Lear, one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs and a veteran Utah public school advocate. “Every dollar moved is a resource lost that could lower class sizes, pay teachers, or expand mental health services.”
“Utah’s Constitution is not a technicality; it’s a promise—a contract with children, families, and communities that public dollars serve the public good. Courts have a duty to enforce that covenant, even when political winds blow in the opposite direction.”
Beyond the legalities, social realities intrude. According to the Economic Policy Institute, nearly every school voucher program in the U.S. has seen disproportionate uptake among more affluent or already advantaged families—often at the expense of inclusive, system-wide public support. Targeted voucher initiatives originally aimed at disadvantaged or disabled students have slowly (and often quietly) expanded to broader populations, resulting in less oversight and more inequality.
Progressive Values Meet Political Pushback: What’s at Stake in the Appeal?
Utah now stands at a crossroads. The “Utah Fits All” ruling resonates far beyond Salt Lake City, embodying a progressive resistance to the privatization of essential public services. For progressives, the court’s decision underscores collective responsibility: that democracy itself relies on strong, equitably funded public schools, not a patchwork of private arrangements.
Supporters of vouchers and so-called ‘school choice’ argue for flexibility, parental rights, and innovation; in statements following the ruling, they reiterated concern for families now “left in limbo,” as current scholarship recipients await clarity. As Harvard education policy expert Dr. Susan Dynarski explains, “Real choice in education can only exist when all kids, regardless of their zip code or parents’ income, have access to quality public schools. Private options are only meaningful if they don’t erode public commitments.”
Can the legislature modify the program to pass constitutional muster? Some are already discussing amendments or workarounds—though legal experts, such as University of Utah law professor Dr. Wayne McCormack, caution that “no amount of linguistic contortion can substitute for real, equitable policy.” The ongoing litigation ensures the story is far from over, with court hearings scheduled to hash out next steps, and with appeals headed for the state’s highest court.
Utah’s public school advocates aren’t celebrating because they dislike choices or innovation. Their celebration reflects a belief that the first choice in a democracy should be making public education strong, well-funded, and open to everyone. The judge’s ruling affirms that accountability must be more than a slogan; it must be a constitutional reality. Whether Utah’s conservative leaders will recognize that—honoring voters’ clear intentions—remains to be seen.
So, the question lingers for policy-makers and families alike: in our urgent drive for educational improvement, do we want to break down barriers—or simply build new ones behind closed doors? Utah’s ruling has set the stage for a larger national reckoning, and as with every fundamental question of public interest, the next chapter belongs to all of us.
