SC Supreme Court rules part of state’s school voucher program unconstitutional

Portions of the Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act in violation of the South Carolina Constitution

The South Carolina Supreme Court has declared portions of the Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act unconstitutional in a 3 to 2 ruling. The court contended that public funds could not be used for the benefit of private schools.

Court Ruling and the South Carolina Constitution

The ruling was based on court documents filed last Wednesday, which indicated that the fund, signed into law on May 5, 2023, is comprised of public funds. The disbursement of these funds to private institutions, as per the ruling, breaches Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution. The Article stipulates that “no money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”

The Contested Trust Fund

The South Carolina Department of Education and other respondents made claims that the funds ceased being considered as public ones once they had been placed into trust. The court, however, refuted these claims, ruling that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund is not truly a trust. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gary Hill likened the fund to a government budget allocation tool meant for allocating public funds to specific government spending projects. According to Hill, the fund was a trust only in name, not in function.

Arguments and Counterarguments

Opponents of the ruling argued that since parents and students were given the choice of what to do with the money, it was not directly benefiting private institutions. The court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that the usage of scholarship funds to pay for private schools’ tuition, whether by the recipients’ own choice or not, directly benefited private institutions. The court stated that a benefit being diffuse did not mean it was not direct.

A Difference of Opinions

Chief Justice John Kittredge, dissenting the ruling, accused the concurring justices of undermining the general assembly and the students who were supposed to be served by the law. In response to this dissenting opinion, the ruling justices stated that their duty was to serve the Constitution, which they argued was the paramount policy of the land. They considered their obligation as being reliant on preventing inconveniences from obstructing clearly established constitutional grounds. They held that the end could not justify the means, as per the tenets of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The ruling concluded that the petitioners convincingly proved that there was no constitutional basis for using these funds for tuition at private schools. Amid debates about school funding and constitutional law, this ruling has set a significant precedent that could have far-reaching implications.