Attorney General files appeal to Utah Fits All ruling

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The Utah Attorney General’s Office has filed a petition to appeal a lower court ruling that found the Utah Fits All Scholarship was unconstitutional.

In an 84-page interlocutory appeal filed to Utah’s Supreme Court, the State Attorney General’s office lists two main reasons why the lower court decision should be overturned. The state claims that:

• First, Article X of Utah’s constitution doesn’t limit the legislature’s authority to create educational programs; rather, it sets the minimum, and the state has done that by providing a public education system, and
Sponsored
• Secondly, voters in 2020 approved expanding the use of income tax to “support children,” therefore, income tax can be used for Utah Fits All because it supports children’s education.

The appeal comes after a district judge found the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program, which critics call a voucher program, unconstitutional because it uses constitutionally earmarked income tax dollars to help families pay for private school education. A group of plaintiffs led by the Utah Education Association filed suit, alleging that the scholarship is an educational program that takes income tax dollars to offset private schools — which are not free and open to all students.

“The legislature does not have plenary authority to circumvent these constitutional requirements by simply declining to ‘designate’ the program as part of the public education system. And because there is no genuine dispute that the program fails to meet these “open to all children” and “free” requirements, it is unconstitutional under Article X of the Utah Constitution,” the lower court decision read.

The state is seeking an immediate review of its appeal, arguing that thousands of families are in limbo.

“That would stop scholarships for thousands of Utah families. And halting the Program would automatically eliminate thousands of dollars in individual public school teacher raises that are statutorily tied to the program’s validity,” the state’s appeal reads. “Neither the State (nor presumably the Plaintiffs) wants to go down that thorny path if the district court’s merits decision turns out to be wrong. Both sides agree the Court should grant an interlocutory appeal to resolve the merits.”

First claim: State met its obligations

The state argues that Article X is not a limit, or “ceiling” on the legislature’s ability to create educational programs, as the lower court argues; rather, it is a minimum standard that the state must meet.

“The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state’s education
systems including: (a) a public education system, which shall be open to all children of the state;
and (b) a higher education system. Both systems shall be free from sectarian control,” the section reads.

“The legislature is already meeting its constitutional mandate to provide a free public education system devoid of sectarian control and open to all children. Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise,” the appeal reads. “The district court recognized that Plaintiffs’ Article [X] claim fails as a matter of law if the educational provisions set a floor rather than a ceiling on legislative power.”

Second claim: The scholarship “supports children”

Contrary to the lower court’s decision, the state argues that the scholarship program “supports children” as the constitution allows. In 2020, voters changed Article XIII section 5 in what was known as Amendment G to expand the use of income tax dollars “to support children” and “to support people with disabilities.” The state argues that, “there can be no real dispute that the Program “support[s] children” under any reasonable, plain, and ordinary meaning of that phrase. Even the district court (essentially) says so.”

The lower court, however, ruled that voters hadn’t been informed that the change in 2020 was regarding school choice or vouchers when the standard had changed.

“In reaching this conclusion, the court makes no judgment as to the value of ‘school choice’ or private school vouchers,” The ruling read. “But ‘school choice’ or vouchers for children without disabilities was never discussed, much less debated, in connection with the legislature’s passage of Amendment G. And, more importantly, the voters were never informed that Amendment G was about ‘school choice’ or vouchers for children without disabilities.”

What now? What happens during litigation

The Utah Fits All Scholarship is still active, and funds are being allocated to families who received scholarships for the current school year. Additionally, families were allowed to continue filing applications for the 2025-26 school year. The State Board of Education also just hired a new program manager while the litigation is ongoing.

If the appeal is successful, the program would presumably be allowed to continue.

If the high court overturns the ruling or declines to hear the case, the program — and teacher salary increases tied to it — could be halted.

The Attorney General’s office told ABC4.com they don’t comment on active litigation. Additionally, the Utah Education Association has not yet replied to requests for comment.

Lindsay Aerts contributed to this reporting.