哥伦布，俄亥俄州 — — 周四，另一家法院宣布俄亥俄州的私立学校代金券计划违宪，认定该计划为必须接受纳税人资助代金券的私立学校提供选择，而非为俄亥俄州家庭提供选择。第十巡回上诉法院三名法官组成的合议庭作出裁决，维持了下级法院2025年6月的裁决，该裁决认为EdChoice计划违反了俄亥俄州宪法关于“彻底而高效的公立学校体系”的要求。
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Another court declared Ohio’s private school voucher program unconstitutional on Thursday, finding it provides a choice to the private schools that must honor the taxpayer-funded vouchers rather than to Ohio families. The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s June 2025 ruling that found the EdChoice program violates an Ohio constitutional requirement for “a thorough and efficient system of common schools.”
该裁决不会立即影响EdChoice计划，该计划在预期上诉期间被允许继续运行。“正如目前结构和资助方式所呈现的EdChoice，利用纳税人资金建立了一套与俄亥俄州公立学校体系所承担的义务不同的非公立学校竞争体系，”大卫·利兰法官在一致意见中写道。法官们特别指出，参与EdChoice的私立学校在招生方面拥有“广泛的自由裁量权”，包括可以基于其认为其声明的招生标准未被满足而拒绝或终止任何学生的入学，无论这些标准是什么。
The ruling will not immediately affect the EdChoice program, which was allowed to remain operational in anticipation of an appeal.“EdChoice, as presently structured and funded, secures with taxpayer funds a competing system of uncommon schools that is not subject to the same obligations imposed on Ohio’s system of common schools,” Judge David Leland wrote in a unanimous opinion. Judges took particular issue with the fact that a private school that participates in EdChoice has “broad discretion” over which students it admits, including denying or discontinuing any student “based on its perception that its stated admissions criteria are not met, whatever those criteria may be.”“Thus, under the program, it is the participating school, not the student or their family, that chooses whether to admit the student and, consequently, whether the student may utilize taxpayer vouchers at that school," the court said.
“因此，在此计划下，是参与学校而非学生或其家庭决定是否录取学生，进而决定学生是否能够在该校使用纳税人代金券，”法院表示。法院进一步认定，EdChoice通过以下三种方式损害公立学校：允许私立学校挑选学生、使参与学校集中在城市地区以及减少选民批准地方学校税收的理由。“这些影响相互强化，”法院表示，“导致入学人数减少、收入下降以及学校财政压力增加的恶性循环。”
The court further found that EdChoice harms public schools in three ways: by allowing private schools to cherry-pick students, concentrating participating schools in urban areas and giving voters less reason to approve local school levies.“Each one of these effects reinforce one another,” according to the court, “creating a downward spiral of reduced enrollment, reduced revenue, and increased fiscal pressure on schools.”
该裁决源于一起2022年的诉讼，该诉讼由数百个公立学区共同提起，称为“代金券伤害俄亥俄”（Vouchers Hurt Ohio），此外还包括一些家长、学生和俄亥俄州联盟。
The decision comes in a 2022 lawsuit joined by hundreds of public school districts, known collectively as Vouchers Hurt Ohio, as well as some parents, students and the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding.
公平与学校经费充足性倡导组织。原告认为，俄亥俄州近30年历史的学校代金券计划——即EdChoice——随着时间的推移，已经形成了一套违宪的、分别资助的私立学校体系，并导致一些学区重新实行种族隔离，因为主要是非少数族裔学生利用了该计划。
The plaintiffs argued that Ohio’s nearly 30-year-old school voucher plan, known as EdChoice, has over time created an unconstitutional system of separately funded private schools and led to resegregation of some districts because mostly nonminority students take advantage of the program.
在她的下级法院裁决中，富兰克林县普通诉讼法院法官贾伊扎·佩奇驳回了原告的论点，即EdChoice违反了平等保护条款。俄亥俄州于2023年将其扩展为一项普遍的代金券计划，该计划是美国规模最大、覆盖面最广的计划之一。推动该项工作的共和党俄亥俄州众议院议长马特·赫夫曼周四表示，上诉法院的裁决与法律先例相背离。
In her lower court ruling, Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page rejected plaintiffs' argument that EdChoice violates the equal protection clause. Ohio expanded to a universal voucher program in 2023 that is one of the largest and most expansive in the U.S.Republican Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, who championed that effort, said Thursday that the appellate court's ruling is out of step with legal precedent.“The constitutionality of various school choice programs has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court, and a variety of other tribunals over the past several decades," Huffman said in a statement.
“过去几十年来，各种学校选择计划的合宪性已得到美国最高法院、俄亥俄州最高法院以及多个其他法庭的确认，”赫夫曼在一份声明中表示。“俄亥俄州12个上诉法院之一的裁决不会对此产生影响。”在周四的意见书中，利兰写道，上诉法院并未暗示“所有形式的学校代金券都违反俄亥俄州宪法”——而仅指出EdChoice“在其目前的结构、资金以及本案提出的挑战下”违宪。本文由自动新闻稿 feed 生成，未对文本进行任何修改。
"The decision of one of 12 courts of appeal in Ohio will not affect that.”In Thursday's opinion, Leland wrote that the appeals court was not suggesting “that school vouchers in all forms violate the Ohio Constitution” — only that EdChoice does “as presently structured, funded, and challenged in this case.”