Citing a lack of evidence, state asks Supreme Court to overturn school funding decision

A February ruling that Wyoming has been unconstitutionally underfunding public education brought major implications for the public school landscape across the state. Educators hoped it would result in better teacher salaries and more money for mental health counselors, school resource officers, school nutrition programs and safer buildings.

But in an appeal filed last week, Wyoming attorneys argued that courts should only intervene to compel increased state funding when evidence “clearly demonstrates measurable harm to students, inability to deliver some required aspect of the education program or meet state standards, or declining education quality.” 

That evidence, the state argues, was not presented at trial. 

Citing that lack of “substantial, objective” evidence, the state is asking the Wyoming Supreme Court to overturn Laramie District Court Judge Peter Froelicher’s decision. 

“The suggestion that Wyoming is somehow shortchanging or harming students through inadequate funding is a premise detached from reality,” reads the appeal, filed Thursday. 

In the 106-page filing, Wyoming’s attorneys also argue the case offers an “opportunity to finally lead Wyoming out of the thicket of endless litigation” that has dogged the state’s school funding model. 

However, the facts still stand, plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit say. 

“We believe the Wyoming Constitution is clear, and the state has not followed the funding model required by the Constitution for 15 years,” Wyoming Education Association President Kim Amen said in a statement. “Contrary to their filing, it appears that the state officials are truly the ones detached from reality when it comes to their arguments about education funding.”

The state’s appeal comes as school-choice advocates are anticipating an appeal in another education lawsuit. Judge Froelicher this month issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed against Wyoming’s new universal school voucher program, the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act. That injunction essentially bars the state from releasing any program funds — up to $7,000 per student for private school costs — until the judge determines whether the program is constitutional. 

The Wyoming attorney general’s office filed a notice of appeal on July 17, signaling the state will challenge the injunction.

Taken together, the cases are poised to shape the future of Wyoming’s public school system, which serves 92,000 public school students and has historically ranked high nationwide.

The appeal also comes as Wyoming lawmakers have embarked on the 2025 recalibration, an exhaustive and tedious assessment of public education funding mandated every five years. Froelicher’s February order has already influenced the process. 

Litigation thicket

The education funding lawsuit is the latest in a string of court cases going back decades that have delineated the state’s obligations.

The latest suit was filed in August 2022. The Wyoming Education Association, an educator advocacy group with 6,000 members, filed the lawsuit, and eight school districts joined as intervenors to challenge the state.

The suit claimed the state violated its constitution by failing to adequately fund public schools and has withheld appropriate funding at the expense of educational excellence, safety and security. That has left districts to fend for themselves and divert funds from other crucial educational activities, which causes further systemic erosion, the suit contended. 

Article 7 of the Wyoming Constitution states that the Legislature “shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public instruction.” Landmark court cases further delineated the state’s obligations in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

The more recent of those, the Campbell cases, set the stage for Wyoming’s current school funding obligations. Those cases culminated in 1995 when the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered the state to determine the cost of a high-quality education, fund public schools, adjust funding at least every two years for inflation and review the components of the school funding model every five years to ensure resources are keeping pace with needs and costs.

But Wyoming hasn’t held up its end of the bargain, the WEA suit alleged. 

A six-week bench trial took place in 2024 to deliberate the issue, with plaintiffs bringing a parade of school staffers and education experts who testified on topics ranging from major maintenance projects to school lunches, campus security and staffing.

Judge Froelicher issued his ruling more than six months later, finding the Legislature failed to properly fund the “basket of quality educational goods and services” that the Wyoming Supreme Court in 1995 ordered lawmakers to set, update and fund every two years. 

The judge also found the state failed to properly adjust funding for inflation; failed to provide funding for adequate salaries for teachers and staff; and failed to provide sufficient funding for mental health counselors, school safety resource officers, nutritional programs and computers for students. Lawmakers have failed as well to properly assess school buildings for “educational suitability,” and have allowed inadequate facilities to exist for too long without repair or replacement, he ruled. 

“The State’s failures have affected Wyoming children’s right to a proper education,” the judge wrote. He ordered the state to modify its funding model in a manner consistent with his order “to assure the school financing system for operations and for school facilities are constitutional.”

His ruling has loomed large over the state’s 2025 school recalibration and is expected to factor heavily into the process. 

The state’s argument 

In the appeal, Wyoming attorneys portray a frustrating cycle of litigation.

“The Wyoming legislature has adjusted the current model over the years to improve efficiency and more closely reflect cost estimates,” it reads. “Unhappy with these choices, school districts and their allies again resort to legal action, filing suit to force further adjustments and compel more spending.”

The notion that Wyoming is shortchanging students, it continues, couldn’t be further from the truth. 

“For decades, the legislature has provided funding more than sufficient to provide an equal and high-quality education for all students,” the filing states. “Operational spending for Wyoming schools consistently ranks among the best in the nation. Expenditures vastly outpace every peer state in the region – in some instances by nearly twice as much per student each year. The idea that districts cannot educate children at this level of funding defies reason.”

Despite this “abundance, the demands of the education establishment remain insatiable,” it continues. 

The district court’s willingness to oblige educators’ demands raises serious concerns about the “basis on which courts may nullify the actions of a co-equal branch to declare a constitutional violation and effectively force more spending,” the appeal concludes. 

The state’s filing contends plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence at trial to compel increased education funding. 

“Appellees did not retain a single outside expert to support their claims, and offered virtually no evidence of measurable harm or system-wide impacts from alleged underfunding,” the appeal states. “Their case consisted almost entirely of their own employees’ personal perspectives on recruiting challenges, tightening budgets, things they felt would be helpful to students, and policy preferences for increased school funding.”

The state, meanwhile, responded with verifiable data and expert analysis, it says — evidence that indicated ample funding. The appeal also walks through the tangled history and complicated process of school funding, diving into the minutiae of cost adjustments, labor markets, landmark cases, inflation and other factors. 

Contrary to underfunding public schools, the appeal argues that the state has “spent lavishly” to address school facility needs. 

But the court did not recognize “indicators of overall abundance,” instead relying on a “nearly impossible standard” in Judge Froelicher’s decision. Thus, the appeal asks the higher court to correct the record by aligning with the state’s interpretation.