A unanimous Ohio appeals panel has ruled that the state’s current EdChoice private-school voucher system violates the Ohio Constitution, a decision that could reshape one of the nation’s broadest school-choice programs but will not interrupt scholarships while the case moves toward the state Supreme Court.

In Columbus City School District v. State, 2026-Ohio-4047, the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed a Franklin County trial court’s 2025 judgment against EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion. The court stayed enforcement pending appeal, meaning students and schools face no immediate operational change. Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson said the state will appeal and emphasized that the program will continue during that process.

The ruling is consequential beyond Ohio because it does not rest on a general rejection of parental choice or every possible voucher design. Instead, the panel focused on the size, funding structure, admissions control, geographic reach and oversight of Ohio’s present system. The opinion expressly said it was not declaring all vouchers unconstitutional. Its holding applies to EdChoice “as presently structured, funded, and challenged in this case,” a limitation also highlighted in Associated Press reporting.

Why the court found a constitutional violation

Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution requires the General Assembly to secure “a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge David Leland concluded that EdChoice now finances a competing system of nonpublic schools that does not carry the same obligations as the public system.

The court identified several structural differences. Participating private schools retain broad authority over admissions, while public schools must serve resident students. The opinion also found that private schools receiving vouchers face less extensive state requirements in areas such as financial reporting, teacher licensure, public transparency and performance oversight. That led the panel to reject the state’s argument that the program principally gives families a choice: in practice, the court reasoned, the participating school makes the final admissions decision.

Geography also mattered. Based on Ohio Department of Education and Workforce evidence in the record, the court said 67 of 154 private schools where at least 75 percent of students used EdChoice vouchers were located in just Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties. Eighty-nine percent were in Ohio’s 16 urban counties. The panel found that statewide tax revenue therefore supports options that are far less available in many rural communities. The Statehouse News Bureau separately reported the court’s concern that rural residents help finance a system concentrated in urban areas.

A funding dispute at the center of the case

The panel also upheld the trial court on a second constitutional theory: that EdChoice undermines the financial integrity of Ohio’s public-school system. It described three mutually reinforcing effects—state dollars going to private schools, higher per-pupil costs for districts as enrollment falls and reduced voter support for local levies.

The opinion relied on budget testimony showing that voucher and public-school foundation funding flow through the same state appropriation line. It cited evidence that EdChoice received about $354 million in fiscal 2023 and $678 million in fiscal 2024, amounts close to the shortfall between enacted public-school funding and full implementation of the state’s Fair School Funding Plan in those years. The state disputed the causal connection, arguing that voucher appropriations were separate and would not automatically be redirected to districts.

That disagreement remains central to the expected appeal. Wilson said the legislature has authority to help families finance the school they choose and argued that the current system does not harm public schools. Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman likewise said prior state and federal decisions have upheld school-choice programs. Voucher opponents counter that Ohio’s expansion has become materially different from the narrower programs considered in earlier cases. Ohio Capital Journal reported both the state’s planned appeal and the coalition’s contention that the present program funds a second system with less oversight.

What remains in effect

For families, the immediate answer is continuity. The stay means the Department of Education and Workforce can continue administering EdChoice while the litigation proceeds. The department’s official program page lists awards of $6,166 for grades K–8 and $8,408 for grades 9–12, subject to program rules and tuition limits.

The scale is substantial. The Statehouse News Bureau reported that roughly 180,000 students participate in Ohio scholarship programs following the 2023 expansion, while the appeals court described EdChoice as having grown well beyond the limited Cleveland voucher program previously upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. The lawsuit began in 2022 and includes hundreds of public school districts, parents, students and the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding.

The next phase will turn on how the Ohio Supreme Court interprets the constitutional duty to maintain common schools alongside legislative power to finance educational options. The appellate opinion leaves room for a different voucher program, but says the current combination of scale, unequal obligations and fiscal effects crosses the constitutional line. A reversal could restore the existing framework; an affirmance could force lawmakers to redesign eligibility, accountability, funding or all three.

The Educator's Takeaway

School leaders should treat this as a major legal development, not an immediate funding or enrollment change. EdChoice remains operational under the stay, and the Ohio Supreme Court has not ruled on the expanded system. District finance teams may nevertheless want to preserve clear records showing enrollment shifts, fixed costs, levy conditions and state-funding effects, because those issues sit at the center of the appellate reasoning. Private-school leaders and families should monitor official notices rather than assume current awards have ended. Beyond Ohio, the decision signals that courts may evaluate voucher programs as complete systems—considering admissions, oversight, geographic access and public-school effects—not only as individual scholarships. The eventual state Supreme Court ruling will determine whether that framework becomes binding in Ohio.

The judgment is narrow because it preserves the program during appeal and disclaims a ban on every voucher model, yet potentially far-reaching because it finds Ohio’s expanded version incompatible with the state’s constitutional promise of a statewide common-school system.