Meredith v. Pence

Decision Date26 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. 49S00–1203–PL–172.,49S00–1203–PL–172.
Citation984 N.E.2d 1213
PartiesTeresa MEREDITH, Dr. Edward E. Eiler, Richard E. Hamilton, Sheila Kennedy, Rev. Michael Jones, Dr. Robert M. Stwalley III, Karen J. Combs, Rev. Kevin Armstrong, Deborah J. Patterson, Keith Gambill, and Judith Lynn Failer, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Mike PENCE, in his official capacity as Governor of Indiana, and Glenda Ritz,<SUP>*</SUP> in her official capacity as Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of the Indiana Department of Education, Appellees (Defendants), and Heather Coffy and Monica Poindexter, Appellees (Defendant–Intervenors).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

984 N.E.2d 1213

Teresa MEREDITH, Dr. Edward E. Eiler, Richard E. Hamilton, Sheila Kennedy, Rev. Michael Jones, Dr. Robert M. Stwalley III, Karen J. Combs, Rev. Kevin Armstrong, Deborah J. Patterson, Keith Gambill, and Judith Lynn Failer, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
v.
Mike PENCE,* in his official capacity as Governor of Indiana, and Glenda Ritz,* in her official capacity as Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of the Indiana Department of Education, Appellees (Defendants),
and
Heather Coffy and Monica Poindexter, Appellees (Defendant–Intervenors).

No. 49S00–1203–PL–172.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 26, 2013.


[984 N.E.2d 1215]


Andrew W. Hull, Alice M. Morical, Hoover Hull, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, John M. West, Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Washington, D.C., Alice O'Brien, Kristen L. Hollar, National Education Association, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Appellants.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General,

[984 N.E.2d 1216]

Heather Hagan McVeigh, Ashley Tatman Harwell, Tamara Weaver, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.


J. Lee McNeely, McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold, Shelbyville, IN, William H. Mellor, Robert W. Gall, Richard D. Komer, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, Attorneys for Intervenor Appellees.

Eric M. Hylton, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Kevin D. Koons, Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Eric Rassbach, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Michael A. Wilkins, Broyles Kight & Ricafort, Indianapolis, IN, Bryan H. Beauman, Alliance Defense Fund, Paris, KY, Gregory S. Baylor, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, D.C., John S. (Jay) Mercer, Mercer Belanger, Indianapolis, IN, Joshua D. Hershberger, Castor and Hershberger, Madison, IN, for The Christian Academy of Madison, Evansville Christian School, Heritage Christian School, Liberty Christian School, Lighthouse Christian Academy, Indiana Catholic Schools of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort Wayne–South Bend, Gary and Lafayette, and the Indiana Non–Public Education Association.

Christopher J. Braun, Josh S. Tatum, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Holy Cross College, and Marian University.

Geoffrey Slaughter, Peter J. Prettyman, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

Joel D. Hand, The Law Offices of Joel D. Hand, Indianapolis, IN, William R. Groth, Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Lisa F. Tanselle, Indiana School Boards Association, Indianapolis, IN, for The Indiana Coalition for Public Education, the Indiana School Boards Association, the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, and the Indiana Association of School Business Officials.

David J. Hensel, Pence Hensel, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Chance D. Weldon, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for The Pacific Legal Foundation.

On Transfer Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 56(A)

DICKSON, Chief Justice.

Asserting violation of three provisions of the Indiana Constitution, the plaintiffs challenge Indiana's statutory program for providing vouchers to eligible parents for their use in sending their children to private schools. Finding that the challengers have not satisfied the high burden required to invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds, we affirm the trial court's judgment upholding the constitutionality of the statutory voucher program.

As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that the issues before this Court do not include the public policy merits of the school voucher program. Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration germane to the narrow issues of Indiana constitutional law that are before us. Our individual policy preferences are not relevant. In the absence of a constitutional violation, the desirability and efficacy of school choice are matters to be resolved through the political process.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment denying relief in an action brought by several Indiana taxpayers (collectively “plaintiffs”) against the Governor,

[984 N.E.2d 1217]

the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Director of the Department of Education of the State of Indiana who were joined by defendant-intervenors, two parents intending to use the program at issue to send their children to private elementary and high schools (collectively “defendants”). The plaintiffs' lawsuit challenges the Choice Scholarship Program, a program enacted by the Indiana General Assembly, Ind.Code §§ 20–51–4–1 to –11, through which “the State provides vouchers called ‘choice scholarships' to eligible students to attend private schools instead of the public schools they otherwise would attend.” Appellants' Br. at 3. The plaintiffs contend that the school voucher program violates Article 8, Section 1,1 and Article 1, Sections 42 and 6,3 of the Indiana Constitution “both because it uses taxpayer funds to pay for the teaching of religion to Indiana schoolchildren and because it purports to provide those children's publicly funded education by paying tuition for them to attend private schools rather than the ‘general and uniform system of Common Schools' the Constitution mandates.” 4Id. at 12. At the trial court, the plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendant-intervenors' motion. The plaintiffs appealed and the defendants filed a verified joint motion to transfer jurisdiction to this Court under Appellate Rule 56(A).5 After consideration, we granted the motion and assumed jurisdiction over the case. For reasons expressed below, we now find that the school voucher program does not violate Article 8, Section 1; Article 1, Section 4; or Article 1, Section 6. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

The plaintiffs contend that the voucher-program statute is unconstitutional

[984 N.E.2d 1218]

on its face 6 and thus embrace a heavy burden of proof. “When a party claims that a statute is unconstitutional on its face, the claimant assumes the burden of demonstrating that there are no set of circumstances under which the statute can be constitutionally applied.” Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332, 337 (Ind.1999). Moreover, in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, “every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality unless clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. at 338;see also State v. Rendleman, 603 N.E.2d 1333, 1334 (Ind.1992) (“The burden is on the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute, and all doubts are resolved against that party.”). Our method of interpreting and applying provisions of the Indiana Constitution is well-established, requiring

a search for the common understanding of both those who framed it and those who ratified it. Furthermore, the intent of the framers of the Constitution is paramount in determining the meaning of a provision. In order to give life to their intended meaning, we examine the language of the text in the context of the history surrounding its drafting and ratification, the purpose and structure of our constitution, and case law interpreting the specific provisions. In construing the constitution, we look to the history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when the constitution or any part thereof was framed and adopted, to ascertain the old law, the mischief, and the remedy. The language of each provision of the Constitution must be treated with particular deference, as though every word had been hammered into place.
Embry v. O'Bannon, 798 N.E.2d 157, 160 (Ind.2003) (quoting City Chapel Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of South Bend, 744 N.E.2d 443, 447 (Ind.2001)); accord Nagy v. Evansville–Vanderburgh Sch.
Corp., 844 N.E.2d 481, 484 (2006).

“In reviewing an appeal of a motion for summary judgment ruling, we apply the same standard applicable to the trial court.” Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1099, 1110 (Ind.2012) (citing Wilson v. Isaacs, 929 N.E.2d 200, 202 (Ind.2010)). Review is limited to those facts designated to the trial court, Ind. Trial Rule 56(H), and summary judgment shall be granted where the designated evidence “shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” T.R. 56(C). “All facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are construed in favor of the non-moving party.” Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep't of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind.2001). When faced with competing motions for summary judgment, our analysis is unchanged and “we consider each motion separately construing the facts most favorably to the non-moving party in each instance.” Presbytery of Ohio Valley, 973 N.E.2d at 1110 (quoting Sees v. Bank One, Ind., N.A., 839 N.E.2d 154, 160 (Ind.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The issues presented by the parties' motions are issues of law, not fact, and our review is limited accordingly.

2. The Challenged Legislation
3. Article 8, Section 1

The plaintiffs contend that Article 8, Section 1, by directing the General Assembly “to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools,” prohibits the legislature from providing for the education of Indiana schoolchildren by any other means. In this respect, the plaintiffs argue that the specific directive for a system of public schools supersedes the other directive of Article 8, Section 1.

As we have previously stated, Article 8, Section 1 (“Education Clause”), articulates two distinct duties of the General Assembly with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Horner v. Curry, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-PL-333
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 27, 2019
    ......Typically, "the party challenging the law must show adequate injury or the immediate danger of sustaining some injury." Pence v. State , 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995) (citing Frothingham v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923) ). The purpose of ...798 N.E.2d 157, 158 (Ind. 2003), modified on other grounds by Meredith v. Pence , 984 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2013) ; see Ind. Const. art. 1, § 6 (prohibiting the expenditure of public funds "for the benefit of any ......
  • Melton v. Ind. Athletic Trainers Bd.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 14, 2020
    ...all facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in favor of the non-moving party, [156 N.E.3d 649 Meredith v. Pence , 984 N.E.2d 1213, 1218 (Ind. 2013). Because we review a summary judgment ruling de novo, a trial court's findings and conclusions offer insight into the rationale ......
  • State v. Beaver
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 17, 2022
    ...of educational rights under a state constitution have found that plaintiffs had standing to challenge such laws. In Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2013), the Indiana Supreme Court determined that taxpayers challenging the constitutionality of the State's statutory school voucher p......
  • Members of the Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Planned Parenthood Great Nw.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 30, 2023
    ...the Constitution, we treat Section 1 with "particular deference, as though every word had been hammered into place." Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213, 1218 (Ind. 2013) (quotations omitted). Article 1, Section 1 states in full: WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they endow......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Sb 47: Eligibility Expansion for the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship Program
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 38-1, September 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...United Way of Conn., https://uwc.211ct.org/federal-poverty-levels-4115-33116/ [https://perma.cc/T64Z-2PZE].102. Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213, 1217 (Ind. 2013).103. Ind. Const. art. I, § 6 ("No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological inst......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT