Wyoming Supreme Court Overturns Block On $50 Million School Choice Program

The Wyoming Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a judge’s temporary block on the state’s $50 million school choice program, ruling that Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher abused his discretion by concluding that the Wyoming Education Association and a handful of teachers may suffer harm from the program. Chief Justice Lynne Boomgaarden wrote the unanimous opinion. The high court sent the case back to Froelicher’s court for further proceedings on whether the program is constitutional. That challenge remains ongoing.

The Steamboat Legacy Scholarship program, crafted by the Legislature in 2024 and 2025, seeks to give $7,000 per family in public money to state-contractor held accounts, which then transfer the money to approved private and homeschool programs for qualifying families. The money is distributed on a first-come, first-served basis from a $50 million pot comprised of appropriations from two years, budgeted from the state’s general fund rather than the accounts that fund public schools.

Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder said she is “thrilled by the unanimous decision” and plans to restart the program immediately, while pursuing the ongoing case “diligently.” She said interested parents can expect a call for applications or renewals ahead of the upcoming school year. “This is a big win because the Wyoming Supreme Court made clear what we have known all along—this is not a school finance case,” she said.

WEA President Kim Amen expressed disappointment, vowing to continue pursuing the case. “WEA respects the Court’s opinion and its role in interpreting the law,” the statement said. “At the same time, this is a concerning result because it will allow, in the short term, public taxpayer funds to be spent on private schools—in conflict with the Wyoming Constitution—and not spent on the more than 95% of Wyoming students who attend public schools.”

The case began when WEA and nine parents of public school children challenged the program in 2025, arguing it would harm their children because private schools do not have to serve students with individualized education plans or who identify as queer, nonbinary, or transgender. The parents said they were unaware of any private school in their areas that would admit their children or be able to provide for their needs. Froelicher blocked the program and its voucher payouts from going into effect.

The high court countered that the parents’ claims do not prove the program could harm them in particular. “A paragraph from the Plaintiffs’ complaint illustrates this point,” the opinion said, quoting where the parents said they “choose to send their children to public school” because of federal services, curriculum, certified teachers, and public accountability. To get a law blocked during a case against it, plaintiffs must show the law can harm them specifically. “Their claim of possible irreparable injury rests on the existence of policies they have not and do not intend to encounter,” the opinion said.

The court also addressed the Wyoming Constitution’s ban on the Legislature sending money to entities not under its control, which has an exception for the “necessary support of the poor” and a later carveout for economic development. The high court stressed that it must interpret “the plain and unambiguous language” of the Constitution, and the Legislature sent its school choice money to the office of the schools superintendent—an office under the Legislature’s control. “We question the court’s authority to venture beyond Art 3, section 36’s plain language,” the opinion said.

Thomas Fisher of Ed Choice Legal Advocate, who represented parents seeking to benefit from the program, called the ruling a “fantastic victory for Wyoming parents looking for better ways to educate their kids.” He said the ruling “dissolves the district court’s ill-considered injunction and recognizes that the program benefits many families and poses no threats at all to public-school funding. The court says this is just not a school finance case, which is what the plaintiffs had tried to make it out to be.”