A federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas’ school choice program likely won’t be resolved until next year at the earliest.
U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. of the Eastern District of Arkansas scheduled the trial for July 12, 2027, in an order on Friday. The lawsuit seeks to halt the state’s Educational Freedom Account program on the grounds that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.
The program, which was created with the passage of Act 237 of 2023, known as the LEARNS Act, significantly expanded state taxpayer funding of student tuition and other costs related to private schools and some homeschool expenses. Over 44,000 students are receiving an Educational Freedom Account in the 2025-26 school year, and the first year participation is open to all K-12 students. The Arkansas legislature has dedicated roughly $309.4 million to the LEARNS school choice program for 2025-26.
The lawsuit was filed against state officials by four plaintiffs who describe themselves in filings as “parents, teachers, citizens and taxpayers”: Gwen Faulkenberry, Special Renee Sanders, Anika Whitfield and Kimberly Crutchfield, who are represented by Richard H. Mays and Hannah Allison Gore Gipson of the Little Rock-based Richard Mays Law Firm. Faulkenberry, who lives in the Ozark School District, has been a columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette since 2021.
Defendants include the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Education Secretary Jacob Oliva, Department of Finance and Administration Secretary Jim Hudson, and each of the state Board of Education’s nine members, who are represented by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders had been a defendant in the case as well, but Marshall ruled that she be dismissed during a Feb. 18 motion hearing that also narrowed the scope of the case.
Marshall’s order came two days after the Little Rock School District filed an amended proposed complaint and supplemental brief on its standing to intervene as a plaintiff in the case.
At the close of that hearing, Marshall said that he remained “bumfuzzled” whether the district, as a political subdivision of the state, could sue its parent. He instructed the district to provide the revised complaint and a brief addressing the district’s standing to intervene.
In the brief filed Wednesday, attorney Christopher Heller contended the Little Rock district met all requirements to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
“It faces concrete institutional injuries from the State’s implementation of the LEARNS Act, asserts its own legal interests, and presents a live case or controversy suitable for judicial resolution,” the brief states.
Heller, an attorney with the Friday, Eldredge and Clark law firm in Little Rock, argues in the filing that the state defendants’ claim that the district lacks standing to intervene because it is a “creature of the state” relies on a misreading of precedent and fails to account for a “modern understanding” of Article III and the Supremacy Clause.
The district initially moved to intervene in late October, arguing that the case’s outcome would “significantly impact” its students and educators.
With support from the ADG Community Journalism Project, LEARNS reporter Josh Snyder covers the impact of the law on the K-12 education system across the state, and its effect on teachers, students, parents and communities. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette maintains full editorial control over this article and all other coverage.
