The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a Pulaski County Circuit Court decision that denied three parents the right to intervene in a constitutional challenge to Arkansas's school choice program. In *Erika Lara, Katie Parrish, and Nikita Glendenning v. Gwen Faulkenberry, Special Renee Sanders, Anika Whitfield, and Kimberly Crutchfield*, the high court ruled that program beneficiaries have adequate standing to defend the Education Freedom Account initiative.
The case stems from a 2023 Arkansas General Assembly enactment of Act 237, commonly known as the LEARNS Act. Section 42 of the Act established the Arkansas Children's Education Freedom Account program, which provides public funding to help parents cover expenses for homeschooling or private school enrollment. The program represents a significant expansion of school choice options in Arkansas.
Erika Lara, Katie Parrish, and Nikita Glendenning sought to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit filed by Gwen Faulkenberry and other plaintiffs against various state officials. The original lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the LEARNS Act under multiple provisions of the Arkansas Constitution, specifically article 14, sections 1 through 3, and article 16, section 11.
Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Morgan E. Welch initially denied both the parents' motion to intervene by right and their request for permissive intervention. The three mothers appealed this decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court, arguing they met the legal requirements for intervention of right.
On appeal, the parents presented three key arguments supporting their right to intervene. First, they contended that as beneficiaries of the Education Freedom Account program, they possess sufficient interest to justify defending the program in court. Second, they argued that shutting down the program and potentially clawing back past tuition payments would directly impair their interests. Third, they maintained that state officials cannot adequately represent their narrow, personal interests in the program's continuation.
Justice Barbara W. Webb authored the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion, which was delivered Dec. 11, 2025. The court found merit in the parents' arguments and determined that the circuit court erred in denying intervention of right. The decision represents a victory for school choice advocates who argue that program beneficiaries should have a voice in defending educational options.
The intervention ruling is significant because it allows parents who directly benefit from the Education Freedom Account program to participate as parties in the constitutional challenge. This means they can present their own legal arguments, call witnesses, and advocate specifically for their interests, which may differ from those of state officials defending the program.
The underlying constitutional challenge targets key provisions of Arkansas's founding document. Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution addresses public education, while article 16, section 11 deals with state funding restrictions. The plaintiffs' specific claims about how the LEARNS Act violates these provisions will now be litigated with the three parent-intervenors as additional defendants.
The Education Freedom Account program has been part of broader national discussions about school choice and public education funding. Similar programs in other states have faced constitutional challenges, with courts reaching varying conclusions about whether such initiatives violate state constitutional provisions regarding public education and funding restrictions.
For the three mothers now granted intervention rights, the stakes are personal and immediate. The program helps offset costs associated with their children's education choices, whether homeschooling or private school attendance. A successful constitutional challenge could not only eliminate future funding but potentially require repayment of funds already received.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to grant intervention rights suggests the justices recognized the distinct interests these parents have compared to state officials. While government defendants typically focus on broad policy justifications and legal precedent, parent-intervenors can speak directly to the program's practical benefits and personal impact.
The case now returns to the Pulaski County Circuit Court for further proceedings. With the intervention question resolved, the court can proceed to address the underlying constitutional claims about whether the LEARNS Act's Education Freedom Account program violates Arkansas's constitutional provisions on education and public funding.
The litigation will likely examine whether using public funds for private education violates constitutional requirements that public money support only public education. Courts in different states have reached varying conclusions on similar questions, making Arkansas's ultimate decision potentially influential for school choice programs nationwide.
This intervention ruling may encourage other beneficiaries of government programs to seek party status when those programs face constitutional challenges. The Arkansas Supreme Court's recognition that program beneficiaries have distinct interests worthy of separate representation could influence similar cases in other jurisdictions.
The case represents the ongoing tension between expanding educational choice and maintaining traditional public education funding structures. As the litigation proceeds, both sides will present arguments about constitutional interpretation, educational policy, and the proper role of public funding in supporting diverse educational options for Arkansas families.