## Facts

- Indiana enacted the Choice Scholarship Program, providing state-funded vouchers for eligible students to attend participating nonpublic schools, including religious schools.
- Voucher amounts were funded from state tuition support and could cover up to a statutory maximum percentage of the per-pupil amount.
- Participation was voluntary; parents decided whether to use a voucher and, if so, which eligible school the child would attend.
- Indiana taxpayers sued state officials, alleging the program violated three provisions of the Indiana Constitution: the Education Clause (Art. 8, § 1), the compelled-support/no-preference religion clause (Art. 1, § 4), and the no-aid clause (Art. 1, § 6).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State and intervenors, upholding the statute; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer and reviewed the constitutional claims as issues of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the voucher program conflicts with Article 8, § 1 by diverting support from the constitutionally required “general and uniform system of Common Schools.”
2. Whether the program violates Article 1, § 4 by compelling taxpayers to support religion, places of worship, or religious ministries against their consent.
3. Whether the program violates Article 1, § 6 by drawing money from the treasury “for the benefit of any religious or theological institution” when vouchers may be used at religious schools.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State and intervenors and upheld the Choice Scholarship Program.
- The program did not violate Article 8, § 1 because the legislature’s education authority is not limited to operating public schools; it may also fund other educational resources while maintaining a general and uniform public school system.
- The program did not violate Article 1, § 4 because it does not compel attendance at, or support of, worship or ministry; any funds reaching religious schools result from independent parental choice in a program directed to education.
- The program did not violate Article 1, § 6 because voucher funds directly benefit students and families; any benefit to religious schools is indirect and ancillary, occurring only if a parent selects such a school.

## Legal Principles

- Article 8, § 1 imposes a duty to provide a general and uniform tuition-free public school system but does not restrict the legislature from supporting education through additional, nonpublic options.
- A neutral aid program that reaches a religious institution only through independent private choice does not constitute compelled support of religion under Article 1, § 4.
- Under Article 1, § 6, the constitutional focus is on the direct beneficiary of treasury funds; where the direct benefit is to students and families, any downstream benefit to religious schools is not barred.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, each motion is evaluated separately, viewing facts in favor of the nonmovant; purely legal constitutional challenges may be resolved as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that Indiana’s voucher statute is constitutional because it supplements, rather than displaces, the required public school system and channels educational aid to students through parental choice, making any benefit to religious schools indirect rather than a prohibited direct expenditure.


Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2013)