Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213

Taxpayers challenge Indiana's Choice Scholarship Program (school vouchers) under Art. 8, §1; Art. 1, §§4 and 6; summary judgment upheld by trial court.
Program provides vouchers up to 90% of state tuition support (max) for eligible low-income students to attend participating nonpublic schools; eligibility cap is 150% of lunch program income; participation voluntary for families.
Eligible schools must meet certain accreditation and curriculum requirements but voucher funds are distributed only with parent and school endorsement; funds may be used for tuition at program-eligible schools, with no direct funding of religious activities required.
Most participating schools were religiously affiliated at inception; program does not alter public/charter school structure and maintains a general public education system.
The challengers argue the program diverts funds from a general uniform system of public schools and violates religious liberty and expenditure prohibitions; the State contends the program supplements, not replaces, public education and falls within the legislature's broad educational powers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the voucher program violates Art. 8, §1 (Education Clause).	Plaintiffs contend program diverts funds and undermines a general, uniform public system.	Bonner framework allows diversification under the first duty to encourage and second duty to provide; program does not eliminate public schools.	No violation; program aligns with separate duties and does not destroy public system.
Whether the voucher program violates Art. 1, §4 (compelled support).	Section 4 prohibits compelling support of religious worship/ministry.	Section 4 concerns compelled attendance/support; expenditures are governed by §6, not §4.	No violation; §4 and §6 serve distinct restraints; program does not compel support of religion.
Whether the voucher program violates Art. 1, §6 (no treasury funds for religious institutions).	Funds flowing to religious schools constitute impermissible direct benefit to religious institutions.	Expenditures must directly benefit a religious institution; here, direct beneficiaries are families, not religious schools.	No violation; program directs benefits to families/children and not directly to religious institutions; §6 not violated.

Bonner ex rel Bonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 2009) (two separate duties under Art. 8, §1; broad legislative discretion; not a constitutional violation if policy respects duties)
Embry v. O’Bannon, 798 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. 2003) (Expenditure-based §6 analysis; direct benefits to religious institutions must be shown; program avoids direct religious funding)
City Chapel Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of South Bend, 744 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 2001) (religious liberty interpretations of Article 1 protections; guiding framework for §4 interpretations)
Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 844 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 2006) (historical/contextual approach to interpreting Article 8 education provisions; informs general-understanding rule)
Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. 2012) (summary-judgment standard; standard of review applied to constitutional challenges)