Attorneys battle over future of taxpayer-funded private school vouchers in Missouri

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
November 25, 2025

The question of whether the use of state funds for private education helps or harms taxpayers was central to day one of arguments on Monday in a trial that will determine the fate of Missouri’s voucher program.

The Missouri National Education Association is challenging the state’s $50 million appropriation to MOScholars, a program overseen by the State Treasurer’s Office that provides scholarships for largely private and parochial schools. The teacher’s union is seeking to bar the treasurer from using any more of the appropriation, of which $38 million has already been spent.

“Defendants ask this court to close one eye, ignore portions of the MOScholar Act and the Missouri Constitution,” Loretta Haggard, the teacher’s union’s attorney, wrote in her pretrial brief. “And render a ruling promoting a policy that they seem to like — public dollars for private school vouchers.”

But the state says the use of state funds doesn’t harm MNEA or its members.

“This is a case about a lawful appropriation that helps millions of Missouri families secure a valuable education for their child,” Assistant Attorney General Peter Donahue told the judge Monday. “It harms no one.”

Donahue asked Cole County Circuit Court Judge Brian Stumpe to dismiss the case at the start of his arguments, citing a lack of standing and a mischaracterization of the MOScholars law.

“(The law) allows for the program to be funded by tax credit donations,” Donahue said. “It does not in any way restrict the funding to tax credits alone.”

The motion was denied. 

Parents intervene in Missouri voucher lawsuit with help from Herzog Foundation leader

Haggard called the law that created MOScholars a “tax-credit statute” — one revolving around tax-deductible donations and devoid of any mention of direct state appropriations.

“The MOScholars act does not ever mention the appropriation of general revenue,” she said. “There is no ambiguity in the MOScholars Act.”

The change from a program solely funded through tax-deductible donations to one that also pulls general revenue has altered its framework, Haggard argued. The treasurer’s office had to create a new dashboard online for parents to see the status of scholarships funded through general revenue, and a new process of invoicing started in August.

The process is not in state law or in the existing agreements with EAOs, she said. The change is “not written anywhere” apart from an emergency rule the state treasurer filed in July.

The rule adds a provision stating the “treasurer shall provide the certified (educational assistance organizations) the anticipated budget authority for the program year.”

Previously, the organizations reported their anticipated donations to the treasurer. But now, with the bulk of the funding coming from state appropriations, the number of scholarships leans on the will of lawmakers instead of organizations’ fundraising.

Haggard also points to the usage of the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Fund, which is described in state law as “for marketing and administrative expenses or the costs incurred in administering the scholarship program, whichever is less.” The treasurer’s fund descriptions on the state website also bear this definition.

That fund now is the vehicle to receive general revenue and then distribute it to schools.

“The MOScholars statute creates no authority for the state to transfer general revenue into the (Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) Fund for scholarships,” Haggard said.

Donahue argued Monday that the statute lacks clear restrictions on general revenue being used for the program. And where there is ambiguity, case precedent presumes that a law is constitutional, he said.

“All they can point to is silence, simply statutory silence,” Donahue said. “It says nowhere that general revenue cannot be added to the structures of tax credits.”

 Donahue also pointed to another part of the law that specifies “monies in the fund shall be used solely by the state treasurer for the purposes of (this section).”

“(The law) says the fund is for the purpose of the MOScholars program,” Donahue said. “The purpose of the Missouri scholars program is to issue scholarships. Full stop.”

Before Stumpe can consider whether state law authorizes MOScholars to use general revenue, he first must determine whether MNEA and its plaintiffs have standing to challenge the appropriation.

MNEA says it has standing as an association, citing members’ opposition to public funding for private and religious schools. Haggard offered excerpts from the association’s 2025 representative assembly resolution as evidence, which Donahue objected to.

Although the state admitted to the document as true and accurate in pretrial filings, Donahue said it was irrelevant.

Haggard said the exhibit was intended to show that “members care about the issues in this lawsuit.”

“I would hate to get to the end of this case and not have shown that the trial is of interest to MNEA’s members,” she said.

Stumpe denied the exhibit. He is considering whether MNEA President Rebeka McIntosh, who is a plaintiff, can be presented as a witness.

McIntosh and MNEA Regional Director Kimberly Duvall also claim individual and taxpayer standing. The impact on taxpayers should be “assumed,” Haggard said, pointing to case precedent.

“All of the discussion of standing is a red herring,” she said.

Donahue said there was “no evidence of any concrete injury.”

“They lack any kind of standing, whether it be individual, associational or taxpayer standing,” he said.

MNEA concluded its arguments Monday. The case is scheduled to conclude Tuesday.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].