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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT