EdLA Cases

Alabama enacted the CHOOSE Act in 2024, making education savings accounts available to every Alabama child for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2025, the public-school dominated Alabama High School Athletic Association denied CHOOSE students access to sports, citing its regulation that students who receive financial aid must wait one year to play sports at their new school, a rule designed to prevent private schools from using privately funded scholarships to attract athletes. However, the CHOOSE Act—which merely provides government benefits that help level the playing field with taxpayer-funded public schools—expressly states that participating in the CHOOSE Act does not affect a student’s athletic eligibility.

EdChoice Legal Advocates stepped in to represent a family harmed by the AHSAA’s rule as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the AHSAA filed by Governor Kay Ivey and Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter. We asked the court to enforce the plain text of the CHOOSE Act statute and enter a preliminary injunction barring AHSAA from enforcing the financial aid rule against CHOOSE Act students. In June 2026, we reached a settlement with the AHSAA that allows our client family to continue participating in sports without limitation based on their son’s status as a CHOOSE Act participant. The Alabama legislature also strengthened protections for CHOOSE Act families, and the AHSAA repealed its rules that discriminated against CHOOSE Act participants.

Arkansas enacted the LEARNS Act in 2023, providing education savings accounts called Education Freedom Accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2025, several parents of public school students filed a lawsuit attacking the program in federal court, arguing it cannot allow students to use the funds at religious schools. A group of Arkansas families is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program.

Arkansas enacted the LEARNS Act in 2023, providing education savings accounts called Education Freedom Accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2024, several parents of public school students filed a lawsuit attacking the program in state court, attacking the constitutionality of its funding. A group of Arkansas families is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program.

Colorado lawmakers created a universal preschool program that would allow parents to choose from a broad array of private providers. The Colorado Department of Early Childhood then disqualified Catholic schools from participating in the program because of their religious beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity. St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, together with other Catholic preschool providers, sued in federal court, arguing in relevant part that Colorado was unlawfully discriminating against them based on their religious exercise. The district court held that the Department cannot accommodate religious views on sexual orientation and gender identity because those issues relate to health and safety, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. EdChoice Legal Advocates filed amicus briefs in support of the Catholic plaintiffs in the Tenth Circuit on appeal and now at the U.S. Supreme Court on petition for certiorari to advance education pluralism in universal choice programs. The briefs argue that excluding Catholic schools based on their religious observance is unlawful discrimination and that excluding Catholic schools also undermines opportunities for LGBTQ families by forcing them to compete with Catholic families for the limited number of approved preschool options. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 20, 2026, and is expected to hear the case in the fall of 2026.

Michigan lacks a school choice program because the Michigan Constitution has a clause prohibiting all aid to private schools. Michigan parents sued, asserting that the constitutional provision should be prohibited from causing special harm to their parental rights. EdLA’s amicus makes two arguments in support of the parents. First, EdLA explains how Michigan’s no-aid clauses regarding private schools are enforced in a discriminatory manner against parents. Second, EdLA compiles evidence demonstrating real harm to students’ education from prohibiting school choice programs.

Missouri enacted the MOScholars program in 2021 and expanded it in 2024 and 2025, providing education savings accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2025, the Missouri teachers’ union filed a lawsuit attacking the expanded funding for the program that was added that year. A group of Missouri families is teaming up with EdChoice Legal Advocates to protect the program. A trial court denied a temporary restraining order against the expanded funding on August 25, 2025, held a bench trial in November 2025, and ruled that the expansion is constitutional in a final decision in April 2026. The teachers’ union is likely to appeal.

To ensure students with special needs receive a quality education, Montana lawmakers created a special needs education savings account program in 2023 to provide families the opportunity to access needed supports such as tuition, curriculum, transportation, therapies, and more. Before the program could launch, opponents sued trying to stop it. EdChoice Legal Advocates stepped in to represent lawmaker and mother Sue Vinton, who sponsored the legislation after being inspired by the success of her now-adult son, Jake, who has Down Syndrome.

On December 8, 2025, the court held that the program was unconstitutional because the scholarships were not properly appropriated. The court also permitted the program to continue operating through the 2025-2026 school year, which means that qualifying families of students with special needs may continue submitting claims to the Montana Office of Public Instruction for covered educational costs payable from their ESAs through the end of the school year. We are currently appealing the adverse decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

Montana lawmakers created Community Choice Schools, which are a type of charter school that has regulatory flexibility like charter schools in other states. Opponents of school choice sued, arguing in relevant part that exempting Choice Schools from certain public school laws and creating a statewide commission for authorizing Choice Schools illegally undermined the authority of the state’s Board of Public Education. EdChoice Legal Advocates partnered with the Frontier Institute, Montana Family Foundation, and Mountain States Policy Center to file an amicus brief in defense of Choice Schools. The brief explained how regulatory flexibility and a statewide authorizing agency are constitutional under Montana law, are consistent with charter school laws in other states, and support quality school options for parents.

In 2025, Tennessee enacted the Education Freedom Scholarship Program, a new statewide ESA program with universal eligibility that allows all Tennessee families to use scholarship accounts for a wide variety of educational goods and services. A group of Tennessee families is teaming up with EdChoice Legal Advocates to protect the program.

Alaska has a unique correspondence program designed to meet the educational needs of students in this sparsely populated state. A group of parents is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to defeat a lawsuit aimed at shutting down this unique program and the opportunity it provides.

Idaho enacted the Parental Choice Tax Credit in 2025, providing a refundable tax credit that parents can claim based on expenditures on a wide variety of educational goods and services. Public schools in Idaho filed a lawsuit attacking the tax credit. A group of Idaho families teamed up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program. On February 5, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled 5-0 in favor of the tax credit, upholding it as constitutional.

Two of Ohio’s most popular educational choice programs are under attack. The Partnership for Educational Choice is defending the programs, which tens of thousands of Ohio students depend on. A trial court ruled against the programs in June 2025 but let Ohio families continue to use the programs while the Partnership appeals the decision.

South Carolina enacted an Education Scholarship Trust Fund program in 2023, providing education savings accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. The South Carolina teachers’ union, the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, and six parents filed a lawsuit attacking the program directly in the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Partnership for Educational Choice filed an amicus brief helping to defend the program at the state supreme court.

In September 2024, the state supreme court ruled in a 3-2 decision that the funding and structure of the ESTF program made it unlawful to use for private school tuition, but the court also allowed the continued use of the program for tutors, transportation, and other educational goods and services. The majority opinion was joined by a recently retired justice and another acting justice, and so the closely divided decision may not reflect the views of the current justices of the state supreme court. Critically, the South Carolina Supreme Court faulted the program for not providing enough choices to parents, observing “This is not the kind of free trade envisioned by Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.”

In 2019, Tennessee enacted an Education Savings Account that helped thousands of low-and-middle-income students receive a quality education. A year later, the mayor of Nashville announced a lawsuit attacking the program. A Group of Tennessee families is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program.

Utah enacted the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program in 2023, providing education savings accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2024, several plaintiffs filed a lawsuit attacking the program. A group of Utah families is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program. A trial court ruled against the program in April 2025 but let Utah families continue to use the programs while the Partnership appeals the decision.

Wyoming enacted the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act in 2025, providing education savings accounts that parents can use for a wide variety of educational goods and services. In 2025, the Wyoming teachers’ union filed a lawsuit attacking the program. A group of Wyoming families is teaming up with the Partnership for Educational Choice to save the program. A trial court enjoined the program on July 15, 2025, holding that the Wyoming Constitution prohibits giving scholarship funds to families and requires government control of schools that parents select to educate their children. The court did not address the Wyoming Constitution provision that expressly authorizes the Legislature to advance educational opportunities. The Wyoming Supreme Court heard the Partnership’s appeal of the trial court ruling on February 10, 2026, and issued a 5-0 decision in May 2026 reversing the trial court and lifting the injunction of the program.