A Cole County Circuit Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Missouri’s decision to fund its private school scholarship program with general revenue, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing and that the case was barred on multiple legal grounds.

The ruling, issued after a November 2025 bench trial, rejects claims brought by the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) and individual plaintiffs who sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state’s appropriation to the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program. 

At the center of the dispute was a provision in House Bill 12, the state’s fiscal year 2026 budget, which appropriated $50 million in general revenue to the ESA fund and more than $51 million for scholarship distribution. 

Court: Plaintiffs failed to show concrete harm

In its order, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a direct, legally recognizable injury resulting from the appropriation, a key requirement to bring the case.

The plaintiffs argued that directing state funds toward private school scholarships would harm public education, but the court characterized those claims as speculative and unsupported by evidence presented at trial. 

The ruling emphasized that Missouri law provides separate and protected funding mechanisms for public schools, and that the appropriation at issue came from general revenue rather than funds designated for public education. 

Additionally, the court noted that state statutes include provisions designed to stabilize public school funding even in the event of enrollment shifts, further undercutting claims of direct harm. 

Taxpayer standing rejected

The plaintiffs also attempted to establish standing as taxpayers, arguing that the appropriation constituted a direct expenditure of public funds.

The court rejected that argument, finding that the ESA funding structure involves multiple steps and entities, including the Office of Administration and independent educational assistance organizations (EAOs), before funds are ultimately distributed.

Because of these intervening steps, the court concluded the appropriation did not meet the legal standard for a direct expenditure that would allow taxpayer standing. 

Sovereign immunity and defendants

Beyond standing, the court found that the lawsuit was barred by sovereign immunity, noting that the plaintiffs failed to identify any statutory or common law exception that would allow the state to be sued in this context. 

The court also determined that the plaintiffs had sued the wrong parties. While the lawsuit named the state and various officials, the ruling emphasized that independent organizations, not the named defendants, are responsible for determining eligibility and distributing scholarship funds.

Educational assistance organizations and third-party administrators play a central role in awarding scholarships and processing payments, the court noted, placing key program decisions outside the direct control of the defendants. 

Program structure and funding

Missouri’s ESA program, often referred to as the Missouri Scholars program, was established in 2021 to provide scholarships for eligible students to attend private schools or access other educational services.

Initially funded through tax credits, the program received a significant expansion through the fiscal year 2026 budget, marking one of the first major uses of general revenue to support the initiative. 

Under the program, scholarships can be used for private school tuition, tutoring, and other approved educational expenses. Awards are administered through certified organizations that work with families and vendors to distribute funds.

The court noted that the legislature has broad authority to appropriate funds to programs created by statute and emphasized the strong presumption that such appropriations are constitutional. 

Court addresses merits despite dismissal

Although the court dismissed the case on threshold issues, it went on to address the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims, stating that they would fail even if the case had proceeded.

The ruling underscores that statutes are presumed constitutional unless clearly proven otherwise and that courts should defer to legislative intent when interpreting appropriations measures. 

What comes next

The decision allows the ESA program to continue operating under its current funding structure, with scholarship awards and payments ongoing.

The case is likely to draw continued attention as debates over school choice and public education funding remain a central issue in Missouri policymaking.