Lawyers on Tuesday presented their arguments to the Wyoming Supreme Court as they sought to prove the irreparable harm — or lack thereof — of Wyoming’s new and highly contentious school voucher program.
On one side were attorneys challenging the program, who argue the state should not be allowed to disburse funds to participants until a court determines if the school-choice program is constitutional. On the other, legal counsel representing Wyoming argued that a lower court judge should not have issued an injunction last summer that halted the program before it could even start.
Tuesday’s hearing in Cheyenne focused on Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher’s July injunction. After the state and intervening defendants tried and failed to get the injunction lifted so Wyoming could roll out the school voucher program, the state appealed, sending the matter to the higher court.
The Supreme Court is now considering whether the lower court erred in blocking the program that was set to begin in July. Nearly 4,000 applicants had signed up for the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Program, which was designed to offer families up to $7,000 per child annually for K-12 non-public-school costs like tuition or tutoring.
“The most obvious issue, and I would say problem in this case, is fairly straightforward,” said Deputy Attorney General Mackenzie Williams, who represents defendants including Wyoming’s superintendent of public instruction and state treasurer. “Can a district court issue a preliminary injunction in this case without any evidence in front of it?” Mackenzie asked rhetorically. “There are no facts to support a finding of irreparable harm to any of the plaintiffs in this particular case.”
Attorney Jeff Lupardo represents the plaintiffs, nine parents of school-aged children and the Wyoming Education Association, who challenged the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship program in a June lawsuit.
Plaintiffs’ arguments hinge on the Wyoming Constitution, Lupardo said, which prioritizes the Legislature’s obligation to fund education. The founding document, he said, mandates that Wyoming offers a complete, thorough and adequate education open to all students.
“We don’t believe that the voucher program satisfies any of those elements,” Lupardo said. “We think it’s at cross purposes with the constitution and what the constitutional framers laid out.”
Justices peppered attorneys with questions and requests to flesh out the justifications behind their cases. The hearing ended after two hours of arguments and rebuttals. The court will now take the matter under advisement.
A turbulent path to school-choice
The Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act represents a significant expansion of school choice in Wyoming. Along with $7,000 per child annually for K-12 non-public-school costs, the scholarship offers money for pre-K costs, but only to income-qualified families at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that’s an income of roughly $80,000 annually.
It comes as a school-choice movement grows nationwide, particularly among conservatives. As more school voucher programs are being passed into law, they are facing similar legal challenges in other states.
Even in Wyoming’s majority-Republican Legislature, the measure created ample tension in the 2025 legislative session as lawmakers grappled with whether it adhered to the state’s constitution, which makes public education a paramount state commitment.
Lawmakers had previously created an income-qualified voucher program in 2024. That program was too narrow, according to Rep. Ocean Andrew, R-Laramie, who sponsored the Steamboat Scholarship bill in early 2025. His 2025 bill proposed significant expansion of the program while eliminating testing and oversight regulations.
The bill ignited one of the hottest debates of last year’s session, with a common refrain that it would result in a costly lawsuit. It survived the opposition and a slew of amendments, however, and Gov. Mark Gordon signed it into law in March. Within months, parents and the WEA filed their legal challenge.
A previous Wyoming Supreme Court ruling on education funding “found that ‘education is a fundamental right’ in Wyoming, that ‘all aspects of the school finance system are subject to strict scrutiny,’ and that ‘any state action interfering with [the right to equal educational opportunity] must be closely examined before it can be said to pass constitutional muster,’” the lawsuit reads.
This voucher program, the lawsuit asserts, does not pass that muster. That’s because “the state cannot circumvent those requirements by funding private education that is not uniform and that meets none of the required state constitutional standards for education.”
The lawsuit asserted that the program would cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs. It asked the court to block the voucher program while the case proceeds and find it unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs met their burden of proof to trigger that preliminary injunction, Froelicher ruled in July. His preliminary injunction essentially barred the state from releasing any Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act funds until he determines whether or not the program is constitutional. He found that WEA and families were likely to succeed in their challenge.
The state, however, fought his ruling. Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, who has championed the voucher program as a major school-choice win, expressed regret in July that the court delay affected families who already applied and were awaiting state money to pay for textbooks, tutoring or private school uniforms.
“You have had your lives unnecessarily upended through no fault of your own,” she wrote in a public message. “This constitutional dispute could have been handled in a different way to not cause such harm to you.”
Defendants attempted to get the injunction lifted pending appeal, which the district court denied. Further challenges led to the Supreme Court considering the matter.
Arguments
The hearing centered on whether the lower court erred in issuing the injunction.
The state’s attorney, Williams, argued that it did because Froelicher had no evidence that the program would cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs — only accusations. In addition, he said, defendants weren’t able to rebut the accusations. “The court relied on unproven allegations that were in the complaint,” he said.
The constitution doesn’t prohibit appropriations made to state agencies for social welfare programs with private beneficiaries, he continued, and the program doesn’t interfere with public school students’ rights. Attorney Thomas Fisher, EdChoice’s executive vice president, made similar arguments on behalf of intervening defendants.
Lupardo, meanwhile, said plaintiffs view the addition of the voucher program to Wyoming’s public schools as creating one system with two options, but the second option falls short of Wyoming’s constitutional obligations.
“It’s all state-funded,” Lupardo said. “It’s all within this system of publicly funded education. However, the voucher program, what it lacks is all of the meaningful oversight that the constitution baked into the education article.”
For more legislative coverage, click here.
If the state gives 4000 families $7000 dollars — that is $28 MILLION — $28 MILLION taken out of public education and that will certainly impact public education to the point that it probably will not be able to exist. This is so sad because WY education ranks in the top 10 states for education (K-12) nationally (per US News and World Report) . Why is WY elected officials trying to tear down the public education system . Families that want to send their kids to private schools are going to do so regardless of if they get the voucher money. Do not let these radical elected officials destroy WY good public education record that will affect future generations in a very negative way.
I appreciate how the article breaks down the legal arguments rather than just the politics. Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, it’s important to understand that this isn’t a simple funding question, it touches on public trust, equal access, and how we define responsibility for education in a community.
Lets say the injunction was not issued and the state paid out the funds. Those families then spent the money like they intended. But then the court finds that the voucher program was unconstitutional, how are the spent funds supposed to be recouped? The state goes to those that received funds and demands them back? If the judge believed that the plaintiffs had a strong chance of winning he is saving voucher recipients pain later on.
When my youngest child was diagnosed with a learning disability in the 1990s, his school couldn’t proved the support he needed and I enrolled him in a private school. I paid tuition for two years out of my pocket, which meant no vacations, no new car, buying less expensive clothes and watching every penny. It also meant no school board oversight, and no parental input on curriculum. Unlike public schools, private schools place power with the principal, not the parents. I didn’t take public dollars, no welfare, to pay for my son’s private school. It was difficult to balance the family budget with the extra expense, but my child was my responsibility, not the obligation of other taxpayers. I endorse paying for public schools, as a responsible citizen who wants Wyoming children to receive a good public education, as part of my civic duty. Funding private educational corporations with my tax dollars is not and should not be my responsibility.
Funding public education corporations with my money is not and should not be my responsibility
My first question is: 4K applicants. Is this the number of families or the number of children applying? Giving 7K per student without any testing or oversight conditions is a non starter for me. If you are legit in your desire to have a choice in your child’s education, and someone will give you 7K annually for that privilege, I think you should consent to conditions that provide assurances that the money is indeed being used as it is intended.
There were absolutely conditions and assurances in place to make sure the use of funds was always audited and used for educational purposes. The students would also be required to take state standardized tests. All the families that were signed up to participate in the program had signed a document agreeing to these conditions and then the funds were frozen a few days before they were supposed to be opened up for use for the 2025/2026 school year.