On Feb. 5, 2026, Idaho’s Supreme Court unanimously upheld HB 93, rejected the monopoly arguments, and ordered attorney fees, while thousands of parents rushed to claim school choice.
This editorial ran in the Tuesday 10 February 2026 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
Opponents of Idaho’s parental choice tax credit attacked House Bill 93 with the usual claims: “unconstitutional,” “unaccountable,” “a second system,” and “a raid on public schools.” Then they asked the Idaho Supreme Court for an extraordinary order to stop the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing the law.
My three previous columns anticipated this result. On Feb. 5, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled unanimously, denying the petition and letting HB 93 stand.
In my September column, I pushed back on the claim that HB 93 “siphons” money from public schools. HB 93 caps credits at $50 million statewide, prioritizes families under 300% of the federal poverty level, and allows eligible low-income parents to elect a one-time advance payment of the credit for each student. Critics did what they always do: they labeled it “for the rich” and hoped nobody read the law.
Then came the lawsuit and the Moscow School District (MSD) decision to join it. In my October column, I wrote that the case would fail because Idaho’s Constitution requires the Legislature to maintain public schools, but it does not prohibit support for other educational options. Opponents tried to turn Article IX into a monopoly clause, hanging their case on the phrase “establish and maintain a” system of public schools, as if “a” meant “one and only one.” The Idaho Supreme Court rejected that reading, holding that Article IX sets a floor, not a ceiling. The court also rejected the “public purpose” attack, confirming that education remains a public purpose even when families choose private providers.
Then came the cry for “accountability.” Plaintiffs demanded more government oversight, yet Idaho’s own numbers tell the story: NAEP and ISAT results show statewide failure as the norm.
In a university town with every advantage, MSD’s ISAT proficiency runs 60.9% in math, 63.8% in science, and 70.7% in English, while state finance records and MSD’s 2025–26 budget show Moscow taxpayers pay about $18,655 per child. Real accountability comes when education dollars follow the student, not the district boundary, and parents can choose schools that succeed for their child.
In January, I widened the lens in “Still Stupid in America, 20 Years Later.” The scandal in education is not funding. America ranks fifth globally in per-student K–12 spending, yet on the most recent PISA math assessment we ranked 33rd, next to Malta, Slovakia, and Croatia. Money does not buy mastery; standards do. A system that rewards failure will keep producing it, no matter how much money we pour in.
Then came standing. The opinion described the plaintiffs’ alleged harms as “speculative and hypothetical,” and made clear that policy disagreement doesn’t equal legal injury. It also warned that urgency can’t be manufactured by waiting months to sue and then demanding emergency relief on the eve of implementation.
Now comes the detail that should make taxpayers furious: attorney fees. Because MSD joined the case, Idaho’s mandatory fee shifting for government versus government litigation applied. The Supreme Court awarded the Tax Commission reasonable attorney fees and awarded costs to both the Tax Commission and the Idaho Legislature. MSD said a teachers’ union-backed coalition covered its own legal bills, not local taxpayers. Fine. The lawsuit still burned resources on lawyers instead of classrooms, and the court sent the bill to the losing side.
But while plaintiffs sued, filed briefs, and held press conferences, parents moved forward. In the first 19 days after applications opened on Jan. 15, 5,056 Idaho families applied for the tax credit, covering 9,341 students. That is steady, statewide demand that shows parents have been waiting for this kind of freedom. At $5,000 per student, that is about $46.7 million already spoken for, roughly 93% of the $50 million cap.
MSD: respond with standards, transparency, and respect for families. Build schools that earn trust, not bureaucracies that demand it. Fix results, not rhetoric.
Democrats: stop treating “public education” as government-only education. Drop the lawsuits and compete on outcomes. Parents already delivered their verdict through enrollment choices.
Republicans: resist the victory lap. A win in court does not fix reading scores, math skills, discipline, or administrative bloat in the government schools. The court settled constitutionality; the Legislature still owns performance. Idaho and the federal government already supply about $10,715 per K-12 student, not counting local property taxes. Yet NAEP shows only 32% of Idaho fourth and eighth graders read proficiently, and only 41% of fourth graders meet math proficiency. Money is not the constraint. Standards, incentives, and competition are. Raise standards. Raise standards, and Idaho’s kids will rise with them.