OLIVER v. HOFMEISTER
2016 OK 15
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Oklahoma enacted the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships (2010/2012) to provide state-funded scholarships for eligible students with disabilities to attend approved private schools instead of the public school that had been serving them.
- Eligibility requires an IEP, prior-year public school enrollment, and acceptance at an approved private school; participation is voluntary and initiated by parents.
- Scholarship payments are issued as warrants payable to the parent/guardian, who may endorse them to the private school selected; approved schools (sectarian or non‑sectarian) must meet neutral state standards.
- Taxpayers sued seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, arguing the Act violates Article II, Section 5 (the Oklahoma “no aid” clause) by allowing public funds to benefit sectarian schools.
- The trial court held the Act violated Article II, §5 only to the extent it authorized payments that ultimately benefited sectarian schools and enjoined those payments; the State appealed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment, holding the Act does not violate Article II, §5 and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act violates Article II, §5 by resulting in public funds supporting sectarian schools | Any scholarship funds ending up at sectarian schools constitute prohibited public support of religion | Program is religion‑neutral, funds go to parent first, and parental private choice severs state support of religion | No violation; scholarship structure and private choice avoid prohibited aid |
| Whether neutrality is negated by de facto greater use of sectarian schools | High enrollment at sectarian schools makes the program effectively aid to religion | Legitimacy rests on neutrality and private choice, not on how many choose religious schools | Numbers of recipients at sectarian schools not controlling; neutrality and choice govern constitutionality |
| Whether payment mechanism (warrant to parent then endorsement) matters | Indirect payment still results in public money supporting sectarian institutions | Payment to parent breaks the direct link; state does not control endorsement | Payment to parent is dispositive—parental endorsement breaks the governmental link to sectarian support |
| Whether the State receives substantial benefit (so payments are fee-for-service, not gifts) | Payments are gifts to sectarian institutions without relevant state return | Scholarships relieve state/district of mandated obligations and costs for special‑education services | State receives substantial benefit (relief of mandated services/costs); supports constitutionality under prior precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. v. City of Guthrie, 253 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2010) (legislative acts are presumed constitutional; statutes construed to uphold constitutionality)
- Kimery v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., 622 P.2d 1066 (Okla. 1980) (constitutional presumption in favor of legislative acts)
- Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (Okla. 2011) (statutory construction favors constitutionality)
- Zelman v. Simmons‑Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) (establishment‑clause analysis emphasizes program neutrality and private choice over recipient numbers)
- Gurney v. Ferguson, 122 P.2d 1002 (Okla. 1941) (direct use of public property or funds—e.g., free transportation—constitutes prohibited aid to sectarian schools)
- Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers, 171 P.2d 600 (Okla. 1946) (public payments to religious institutions permitted when there is substantial return to the state and not a gratuitous gift)
- Burkhardt v. City of Enid, 771 P.2d 608 (Okla. 1989) (reiterating substantial‑benefit test under Article II, §5)
- Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) (federal precedent that high percentages of religious‑school use do not by themselves invalidate neutral aid programs)