ILNews

Supreme Court sets arguments in school voucher case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 21 over whether the state’s school voucher program is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs – 12 Indiana residents including educators, clergy and parents of children in public and private schools – filed the lawsuit in July 2011 challenging the Choice Scholarship Program enacted last year. The program gives scholarships, commonly referred to as vouchers, to students whose families meet financial guidelines to attend public or private schools in other districts that charge transfer tuition.

Currently, the number of scholarships that can be awarded is capped, but next year, there will be no limits on the number that may be awarded. Once fully implemented, nearly 60 percent of all Indiana schoolchildren will be legally entitled to receive a scholarship upon application.

The plaintiffs claimed the law violates the General and Uniform System of Common Schools Clause of Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution as well as Article 1, sections 4 and 6 because students can use the state-funded vouchers to attend religious schools.

Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele denied their request for a preliminary injunction and in January granted summary judgment for defendants Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana Superintendent Dr. Tony Bennett and two defendant intervenors, Heather Coffy and Monica Poindexter. Coffy and Poindexter are parents who want to use the voucher program to pay for part of their children’s tuition at private schools.

Numerous educational groups and schools have joined in the suit, including the Indiana School Boards Association, Evansville Christian School, Marian University and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

 The justices announced the November oral argument on Wednesday. The case is Teresa Meredith, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 49S00-1203-PL-172.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT