This Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that opponents hope will stop Idaho’s Parental Choice Tax Credit just as it’s getting off the ground.

Supporters view the tax credit as a modest step toward education freedom—helping families access tutoring, curriculum, and in some cases tuition, without touching the public school budget. Opponents, led by the teachers union and allied petitioners, want the Court to block the program entirely.

But the most important thing Idahoans should understand going in is this: the legal theory petitioners are asking the Court to adopt isn’t narrow. It’s sweeping. If accepted, it could transform Idaho constitutional law into a weapon against not just this program, but other long-standing public policies—and even ordinary tax credits.

Here are six things to watch during oral arguments, and why it would be absurd for the Court to strike down the program based on petitioners’ arguments.

1) The teachers union’s storyline collides with public opinion

Opponents want Idahoans to believe the Parental Choice Tax Credit is some unpopular scheme being forced on an unwilling public.

But public opinion is consistently moving in the opposite direction.

The reality is that Idaho voters increasingly support education choice measures, and the tax credit has been polling in the mid-60s—roughly two out of every three voters. The most recent Idaho Poll found 65% support.

This matters because opponents aren’t just arguing this is bad policy. They are arguing it is so illegitimate it must be stopped by emergency court action.

Courts shouldn’t rule by poll. But when petitioners try to frame this as a democratic crisis, the public record points the other way: Idaho families want more educational options, not fewer.

2) Petitioners’ logic threatens to upend Idaho’s tax system

One of the most dangerous parts of petitioners’ case is how easily it expands beyond education.

Petitioners argue the tax credit is unconstitutional because taxpayers—and parents—might use it in ways petitioners dislike, and because the state cannot trace or control the downstream use of every dollar. That is their core “accountability” posture.

But if that becomes a constitutional rule, it doesn’t stop with this credit.

It invites challenges to any number of tax credits and deductions that exist precisely because government has decided not to micromanage how every private actor spends every dollar they save. The principle would become: if the state can’t track every downstream decision, then the policy is constitutionally suspect.

That doesn’t protect the Constitution. It destabilizes Idaho governance.

Petitioners are essentially asking the Supreme Court to create a new constitutional veto over tax policy—based not on constitutional text, but on how much oversight petitioners wish the government had.

3) The Court should reject the idea that every state dollar “belongs” to public schools first

Listen for the word “defund.” You’ll hear it repeatedly.

Petitioners claim the Parental Choice Tax Credit “defunds” public schools—even though the program is not part of the public school budget and operates as a separate mechanism under the tax code.

The real logic behind their argument is not that the program literally takes money out of the K–12 line item. It is the “could-have-been-spent-elsewhere” theory: that any dollar Idaho doesn’t spend on K–12 should be treated as money taken from K–12.

That premise is extreme.

If the Court accepts it, then every budget decision becomes justiciable. The argument would become: if the Legislature funds anything—roads, law enforcement, universities, water projects—opponents could sue and claim those dollars “belonged” to public schools first.

That is not how separation of powers works. The Legislature sets priorities and writes budgets. Courts interpret the Constitution. Petitioners are asking the judiciary to override the Legislature’s policy choices by pretending the Constitution assigns first claim on all public dollars to one interest group.

That would be an extraordinary power grab, and the Court should have no part in it.

4) Does Idaho’s “uniform public schools” duty really equal a ban on any other educational help?

This is petitioners’ most sweeping constitutional claim: that the uniformity clause doesn’t just require Idaho to provide public schools—it prohibits the Legislature from supporting education outside that system.

In their own petition, they argue the Legislature has a mandate to maintain “a single system of public schools,” and that the Constitution “grants it no authority” to “publicly fund or establish separate education systems or programs.”

That reading doesn’t stretch Article IX—it breaks it.

Article IX, Section 1 exists to guarantee Idaho maintains a “general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”  It does not say public schools must be the only form of education allowed to exist, and it certainly does not say the state is constitutionally forbidden from helping families who choose alternatives.

Petitioners want the Court to transform a constitutional floor into a constitutional ceiling—freezing education policy in place and forbidding innovation, parental choice, or supplemental support.

And once you accept that ceiling, the consequences don’t stop with one program. You’ve effectively constitutionalized a monopoly. Any future attempt to help students outside the public system becomes suspect simply because it is not part of the single system petitioners prefer.

That is not faithful constitutional interpretation. It’s judicial policymaking by prohibition.

5) It would be absurd to treat “more regulation” as a constitutional requirement

Petitioners also argue the program is unconstitutional because private schools remain private.

They highlight the statute’s explicit statement that the program cannot be construed to permit government “control or supervision” of nonpublic schools, and that participating schools are not required to alter their “creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum.”

Then they take the next step: implying that this is a constitutional defect.

But that argument is the definition of a policy preference disguised as constitutional law.

The Idaho Constitution does not say: if lawmakers offer families a tax credit, then private schools must be regulated like public schools. Petitioners want the Court to impose that rule anyway—essentially announcing that Idaho may only support educational choice if it first transforms private institutions into state-supervised agencies.
That would create a chilling doctrine where any education reform can be killed in court with the same script: “Not enough oversight. Not enough regulation. Therefore unconstitutional.”

That isn’t constitutional interpretation. It’s giving opponents a permanent litigation strategy to veto reforms they cannot defeat in the Legislature.

And petitioners even acknowledge the program’s oversight focuses on the core issue the state actually administers: auditing expenses and evaluating parent experience through surveys and reporting.

Their complaint isn’t that there is zero accountability—it’s that there isn’t the kind of accountability they want.

That is a legislative debate, not a constitutional emergency.

6) The Court should take judicial notice of the timing—this was filed to disrupt and intimidate

If petitioners truly believed this program was an urgent constitutional crisis, they could have filed the lawsuit at any point after HB 93 became law.

They didn’t.

They waited until the last possible moment—then asked the Idaho Supreme Court to intervene before the program even opened

Petitioners explicitly tell the Court this is “time sensitive,” and request expedited consideration so public funds are not spent “after applications for tax credits open on January 15, 2026.”  They ask for emergency-style intervention.

That tactic isn’t about clarity. It’s about chaos.

By waiting as long as possible, petitioners maximized uncertainty for families who were preparing to apply. And even if petitioners ultimately lose, the timing itself can accomplish what the lawsuit is designed to do: scare parents away from applying by making participation feel risky or unstable.

Courts should not reward that strategy.

The Supreme Court exists to decide real disputes carefully—not to become a tool for last-minute pressure campaigns designed to disrupt lawful programs and intimidate families before they have the chance to participate.

This hearing isn’t just about one tax credit.

Petitioners are asking the Idaho Supreme Court to adopt a theory that would effectively declare:

• public schools have first claim on every discretionary state dollar,
• the Constitution forbids lawmakers from supporting educational options outside the public system,
• and any policy that helps families must come with the level of regulation petitioners prefer—or it can be struck down.

That would be a seismic shift in Idaho law, and it would place courts in the role of policymakers.

The Supreme Court should do what courts are supposed to do: read the Constitution carefully, respect the Legislature’s authority to set budgets and policies, and reject an interpretation so broad it would destabilize Idaho’s tax and education landscape for years to come.