In Edison v. South Carolina Department of Education, (SC Sup. Ct., Sept. 11, 2024), the South Carolina Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision held that the state's Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act violates the state constitution insofar as it authorizes use of ESTF funds to pay tuition and fees to private educational institutions. Article XI, Sec. 4 of the South Carolina Constitution provides:
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 court said in part:
A parent who chooses to use a scholarship to pay their child's private school tuition is undoubtedly using public funds to provide a direct benefit to the private school.... After we clear away the window dressing, we can see the Act funnels public funds to the direct benefit of private schools. This is what our constitution forbids. We conclude Petitioners have carried their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the portion of the Act that allows tuition payments from public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions violates Article XI, Section 4.
Chief Justice Kittredge, joined by Justice Few, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:
Under the South Carolina Constitution, the use of public funds for the direct benefit of a private school is impermissible; the use of public funds for the indirect benefit of a private school is entirely permissible....
In my view, ... the structure and operation of the ESTF Act provide an indirect benefit to schools of the families' choice—both private and public alike. Nonetheless, the majority opinion today defines the phrase "direct benefit" so broadly that it swallows any possible meaning of "indirect benefit" in the process.
AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]
