The Idaho Supreme Court struck down every argument against the state's Parental Choice Tax Credit program on Feb. 5, delivering a unanimous ruling that the program stands.

ED Choice reported that the court denied a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging House Bill 93 — the 2025 law that created a refundable tax credit for families who pay certain private education expenses — dismissed the case in full, rejected every major constitutional theory advanced by the petitioners, and awarded attorney fees to the Idaho State Tax Commission.

Five justices. Zero dissents. Attorney fees to the state. That's not a close call. That's a rout.

The decision clears the path for Idaho's first school choice program to proceed as enacted, with the application period already underway and thousands of families lining up to use it.

As of Wednesday, the Tax Commission had received 5,056 applications covering 9,341 students — families who chose not to wait for the courts and instead bet on their own children.

A Floor, Not a Ceiling

The challengers — a coalition that included the Idaho Education Association and the Moscow School District — filed their lawsuit last September, asking the court to declare the Parental Choice Tax Credit unconstitutional and block it from taking effect. Their central argument rested on Article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, which provides that the Legislature shall "establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools."

From that language, the coalition derived a sweeping claim: that the Idaho Constitution permits 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.

Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan, writing for the majority, held that Article IX, Section 1 sets a floor, not a ceiling. The state must have a public school system, but the Legislature is not banned from passing additional education-related laws.

The constitution requires the Legislature to do one thing. It does not prohibit it from doing more. Reading Article IX as a limitation, the court explained, would be "unduly restrictive" and would disregard the Legislature's "plenary power" to enact laws that aren't prohibited by the state or federal constitutions.

The petitioners argued that taxpayer funding for private education creates a parallel system that isn't general, uniform, or thorough. The court found 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.

The teachers' union tried to turn a constitutional obligation into a constitutional straitjacket. The court told them no — unanimously.

The "Public Purpose" Gambit

The coalition also argued that the tax credit violates the "public purpose doctrine" — the principle that the state must spend taxpayer dollars in the public interest, not in private interests. This was the backup theory: even if the constitution doesn't outright prohibit non-public education funding, the money flows to private schools, and that makes it unconstitutional.

The court wasn't persuaded. The tax credit may "incidentally benefit private enterprise," Chief Justice Bevan wrote, but that doesn't transform its purpose into a private one.

The Legislature stated that the program's intent was to allow parents the ability "to choose educational services that meet the needs of their individual children." Education is a public benefit. The credits can be spent on far more than just private school tuition — books, curriculum, tutoring, and other expenses in private and home-school settings.

"The fact that some educational services are provided by private actors who may limit the scope of admission to their schools does not make the educational services less beneficial to the public as a whole."

That line from the court's opinion dismantles one of the most persistent arguments wielded against school choice programs nationwide. The education establishment has long operated on the assumption that public funding and public control are inseparable — that any dollar not routed through a government-run school is a dollar stolen from children. The Idaho Supreme Court just rejected that premise at the constitutional level.

There's an additional detail worth noting: the court questioned whether the petitioners even had standing to bring the challenge. The coalition brought its case before any tax credits had been distributed.

The alleged injuries the petitioners claimed were, in the court's assessment, "hypothetical and speculative." The court nonetheless chose to hear the case, noting that it sometimes loosens standing rules for urgent constitutional questions with approaching deadlines. But the fact that standing was dubious from the start tells you something about the strength of the underlying challenge.

The petitioners couldn't point to a single family harmed. Couldn't identify a single public school defunded. Couldn't show a single concrete injury. And even the opinion noted that the petitioners' attorneys did not argue that Idaho's system of public schools was deficient, or that the tax credit program would make it so. They sued on vibes.

The Concurrence That Says It All

Justice Gregory Moeller joined the unanimous ruling but penned a separate concurrence worth reading closely. He directed his comments at court-watchers who might characterize the decision as a "landmark" or "watershed" moment representing a "fundamental change in the constitutional landscape."

"I wish to stress that I do not believe that is what has occurred today."

Moeller emphasized that the "constitutional foundation for public education…remains firmly intact." He also wrote that the law's impact can be "reexamined in the future when the impact of this legislation can be properly ascertained." In other words: the constitution requires public schools, and that requirement hasn't budged. What it doesn't require is a government monopoly on education.

"Today, we have only determined that nothing in the Idaho Constitution prohibits the legislature — provided it fulfills its constitutional duty to public education — from using tax credits to assist parents who are financing their children's education outside of that system."

That framing is important. It's a concurrence that simultaneously affirms the ruling and narrows its reach — acknowledging the Legislature's authority while preserving the constitutional commitment to public schools. This isn't a revolution. It's a restoration of balance the education establishment never wanted.

Who Fought It — and Why

The coalition that challenged HB 93 included the Idaho Education Association — the state's teachers' union — and the Moscow School District. After the ruling, the coalition released a statement conceding that while the court ruled the credits "are not unconstitutional," that "does not mean that they are good policy." They pledged to continue advocating for public education "despite this setback."

Notice the pivot. When the legal argument fails, you switch to the policy argument. When the constitution doesn't help you, you claim the moral high ground instead. The Idaho Education Association spent months insisting this program was unconstitutional. Five justices disagreed. Now the same people who were certain it violated the state's founding document want everyone to know the real problem is that it's just bad policy.

The program provides refundable tax credits of up to $5,000 per eligible student — up to $7,500 for students with disabilities. Governor Brad Little signed HB 93 into law on February 27, 2025, with retroactive effect to January 1, 2025. The application window for nearly $50 million in tax credits opened January 15. Within weeks, thousands of families applied.

These aren't wealthy families gaming the system. These are parents — more than five thousand of them already — making specific decisions about what their individual children need. Tutoring. Curriculum. A school environment that works for a kid on the autism spectrum. The kind of choices that affluent families have always had and that this program extends to everyone else.

What Idaho Means for the Rest of the Country

School choice opponents have relied on state constitutional challenges as their primary weapon against parental empowerment programs. The playbook is familiar: find a provision mandating public schools, argue it prohibits everything else, and hope a sympathetic court agrees. Idaho just broke that playbook.

The "floor, not a ceiling" framework the Idaho Supreme Court established is a template. Every state constitution mandates some form of public education. If the Idaho court's reasoning holds influence, the mere existence of that mandate can no longer be weaponized to prevent legislatures from giving parents options. The constitutional duty to maintain public schools is real. The constitutional prohibition on anything else is invented.

EdChoice Legal Advocates and the Institute for Justice, through the Partnership for Educational Choice, submitted an amicus brief in defense of the program.

They moved to intervene on behalf of three Idaho families who plan to use the credit. The court did not grant intervention but allowed the amicus filing — and the arguments it contained ran through the final opinion.

The education establishment's legal strategy didn't just lose. It lost unanimously, on every count, with attorney fees awarded to the other side. Thousands of Idaho families are already applying. The law stands. And the principle it established — that parents, not unions, decide where education dollars follow — just got its strongest judicial endorsement yet.

Five justices. Zero dissents. Idaho parents won.