Parents Fight for Educational Choice in Scholarship Dispute

In a passionate battle for educational freedom, South Carolina parents are challenging a recent South Carolina Supreme Court ruling that has stripped away their ability to use education scholarships at private schools.

Yamilette Albertson Rodriguez and Constantine Shulikov have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit seeking to restore the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) program, which aims to facilitate access to education for more South Carolinians. The program, established in 2023, initially offered qualifying families a $6,000 scholarship to be used for various educational expenses, including private school tuition.

However, a recent 3–2 South Carolina Supreme Court ruling effectively dismantled the program by prohibiting parents from using the funds for private school tuition. This decision has left nearly 5,000 low-income families without a critical educational lifeline. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the South Carolina Department of Education’s policy, which prohibits using scholarships for private school tuition.

The most controversial aspect of this dispute is South Carolina’s unique Blaine Amendment. This amendment is a constitutional provision that goes beyond typical restrictions on public funds. While most states limit funding for religious schools, South Carolina’s amendment completely bans public funds from benefiting any private school, regardless of religious affiliation.

South Carolina adopted their Blaine Amendment as part of its constitution in 1895, which arose out of hostility to the Catholic church. Specifically, Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution states: “No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”

In 1973, South Carolina altered its version of the Blaine Amendment to allow the funds that indirectly benefit private and religious schools, but the prohibition remains against funds that directly benefit such institutions.
The Institute for Justice argues that this prohibition violates fundamental constitutional rights established in landmark United States Supreme Court cases. For example, in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court recognized parents’ right to direct their children’s education, including the choice to send children to private schools.

David Hodges, an educational choice attorney with the Institute for Justice, argues that the recent ruling unfairly targets low-income families, making it a clear act of discrimination. The program was designed to provide educational alternatives to families whose children might be trapped in underperforming public schools, thereby offering them an alternative — a path to better educational opportunities.

The financial implications are significant. Families who once relied on the ESTF program to cover their children’s tuition are now struggling to maintain their children’s education while also taking care of living costs. A temporary lifeline came in the form of a $900,000 donation from billionaire Jeffrey Yass and other charitable contributions. However, this support only lasted until the end of 2024, so it was a short-term solution for a long-term problem.

The lawsuit represents a critical effort to provide an effective long-term solution for affected families. While the immediate future of the scholarship program remains uncertain, advocates are exploring multiple avenues. New bills are being introduced in the 2025 legislative session, and the South Carolina Policy Center is pushing for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Alternatively, supporters might seek an amendment to the outdated version of SC’s Blaine Amendment, so that the state would explicitly approve state funds to flowing to private schools — though constitutional amendments rarely pass in South Carolina.

As the battle for school choice continues, the core issue remains the same — parents right to choose what they believe to be the most appropriate educational path for their children. Whether they live paycheck to paycheck or have adequate resources, many believe parents’ economic circumstances should not be a factor affecting the quality of their children’s education.