The Arkansas Supreme Court has overturned a lower court’s decision, ruling that parents utilizing the state’s controversial Education Freedom Account (EFA) program have a fundamental right to join a lawsuit challenging the program’s constitutionality. In a significant win for parental advocates, the high court found that the parents’ financial stake in the program was substantial enough to warrant intervention, meaning they can now actively defend the state aid they rely on for private schooling or homeschooling.
The case centers on the LEARNS Act, enacted in 2023, which established the EFA program. This program provides funds—reportedly over $6,600 per student—to help parents cover the costs of private school tuition or homeschooling expenses. A group of plaintiffs, led by Gwen Faulkenberry, sued state officials, arguing that the EFA program violates several sections of the Arkansas Constitution, specifically claiming it constitutes an illegal exaction of public funds. The plaintiffs not only sought to halt future payments but also demanded that funds already distributed be “clawed back.”
Erika Lara, Katie Parrish, and Nikita Glendenning, all parents whose children benefit from the EFA funds, sought to step in as intervenors in the lawsuit. They argued that if the program were struck down, they would suffer direct economic harm and that the state actors being sued could not fully represent their specific, personal interests.
Lower Court’s Initial Refusal
The Pulaski County Circuit Court initially denied the parents’ motion to intervene. The circuit court reasoned that the parents lacked a “direct, substantial, and legally protectible interest” in the program. Furthermore, the judge found that the outcome of the lawsuit wouldn’t practically impede the parents’ ability to protect their interests, and that existing state parties would adequately represent them anyway.
The parents immediately appealed this denial, arguing that losing the financial assistance would make their children’s education significantly less affordable.
Supreme Court Applies Intervention Standard
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court’s decision *de novo* (meaning they looked at the matter fresh, without deference to the lower court’s findings on the law). The standard for intervention of right under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires three main things: a timely application, an interest relating to the subject of the action, and a situation where the outcome could practically impair that interest unless it’s adequately represented by others.
The Supreme Court quickly dismissed the issue of timeliness, noting the parents filed their motion just eleven days after the main lawsuit began.
Economic Interest is “Direct and Substantial”
The core of the ruling focused on whether the parents possessed a “recognized interest.” Citing previous case law, the Court emphasized that this interest must be “direct, as opposed to tangential or collateral,” and must be both “substantial” and “legally protectable.” Crucially, the Court confirmed that such an interest can arise from potential “economic damage” resulting from a ruling on a government regulation.
The majority opinion found this requirement easily met. The loss of over $6,600 earmarked for private tuition or homeschooling expenses constitutes a clear economic loss. Moreover, the lawsuit’s attempt to “claw back” already distributed funds directly threatened the parents’ resources. The Court concluded that the parents had unequivocally established a recognized interest in the litigation.
State Actors Cannot Adequately Represent Parental Concerns
Perhaps the most critical finding was the Court’s assessment of whether existing state defendants—including the Secretary of Education and the Governor—could adequately represent the parents.
The parents argued that their focus was narrow and deeply personal: ensuring their children’s access to specific educational opportunities the EFA enables. In contrast, the state actors, while defending the law, were primarily concerned with the broader policy implications of overhauling public education in Arkansas.
The Supreme Court agreed with this distinction, finding it “pivotal.” Drawing parallels to a prior case involving casino regulation, the Court noted that state agencies, like the Department of Education, have a much broader mandate than the parents’ specific, pressing need to fund their children’s current education path. The Court suggested that the parents’ participation could offer the court valuable, firsthand evidence about the actual equities involved when weighing the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge. Therefore, the state actors did not adequately represent the intervenors’ narrow interests.
Reversal and Remand
Because the Court found that the parents satisfied all criteria for intervention as a matter of right—having a timely, recognized, and inadequately represented interest—it reversed the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order and remanded the case. This means the parents now have the right to join the lawsuit as formal parties, allowing them to present evidence and argue on their own behalf against the effort to dismantle the EFA program.
Dissenting View on Procedural Grounds
The decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice Karen R. Baker dissented, joined by two Special Justices. The dissent did not address the merits of intervention itself. Instead, the Chief Justice argued that the appeal should have been dismissed entirely based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, citing issues raised in a companion case involving the Arkansas Department of Education. According to the dissent, immunity concerns should have prevented the Court from reaching the merits of the intervention denial.
The ruling is a significant procedural victory for beneficiaries of state aid programs facing legal challenges, ensuring that those who directly rely on the challenged benefits have a seat at the table when the program’s legality is being decided.