South Carolina Supreme Court Rules Against Use of Public Funds for Private School Tuition

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that the use of public money for private school tuition is unconstitutional.

At a Glance

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled 3-2 against parts of the Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act.
The ruling states that public funds cannot benefit private schools, citing Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution.
The court concluded that using scholarship funds for private school tuition directly benefits private institutions with public funds.
Chief Justice Kittredge’s dissent criticized the ruling for undermining the General Assembly and the students the law aimed to assist.
State Superintendent Ellen Weaver expressed concern over the ruling’s impact on families currently using the vouchers.

Supreme Court Decision

In a critical 3-2 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act is unconstitutional. The ruling states that public funds cannot be used for the benefit of private schools, as it violates Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution. The Act, which was signed into law on May 5, 2023, was scrutinized by the justices, who determined that disbursing public funds to private institutions is against state constitutional provisions.

The South Carolina Department of Education argued that once funds were placed into the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF), they were no longer public. However, the court disagreed, articulating that the fund did not operate as a true trust. Justice Gary Hill compared the fund to a “government budget allocation tool,” underscoring that the funds retained their public nature. He further refuted arguments that families making personal educational choices using the money negated its direct benefit to private institutions.

The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina has ruled that Education Scholarship Trust Fund program violates the state's constitution when it uses public money to fund private school education.
https://t.co/rRtS75TdRf

— WCNC Charlotte (@wcnc) September 11, 2024

Arguments and Implications

The entire court underlined that scholarship funds for private school tuition directly benefit private institutions with public funds. These arguments opposed the notion that such benefits were indirect and therefore allowable. Chief Justice John Kittredge, who dissented, expressed significant concerns regarding the ruling’s consequences for the legislative assembly’s authority and the students meant to be aided by the law.

However, the ruling opinion shot back by saying, “Our duty is to serve the Constitution, the supreme policy of our land. As such, our obligation is not to allow a rug to cover up well marked constitutional ground, no matter how inconvenient that ground may prove to be to otherwise arguably salutary policies. The entire concept behind the Constitution and the rule of law is that the end cannot justify the means.”

The ruling disrupted the school year for students already utilizing these vouchers. Ellen Weaver, the State Superintendent of Education, indicated worries over the impact on families. The echoes of this ruling resonate with a similar recent ruling by Kentucky’s Supreme Court, which struck down its own voucher program for comparable reasons. Kentucky’s legislature has since attempted constitutional amendments to circumvent their court’s decision, a strategy that South Carolina’s legislature might consider.

Looking Forward

The implications of this decision affect approximately 2,880 families who were set to receive scholarships through the Education Scholarship Trust Fund. Despite the ruling, the entire fund hasn’t been abolished. Funds can still be used for therapy, tutoring, and other educational services, excluding private school tuition. Legislators in support of vouchers are contemplating several approaches to counter the Supreme Court ruling, which may include pursuing a constitutional amendment or altering the state’s Supreme Court constitution.

As debates continue, the court reiterates the importance of adhering to constitutional boundaries, signifying a critical stance for maintaining the separation between public funding and private education.