The Idaho Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of prohibition filed against the Idaho State Tax Commission by a coalition of education advocacy groups, parents, and constitutional protection organizations. The court issued its ruling Feb. 5 in *Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution v. State* (Idaho 2026).
The petitioners included the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution Inc., Mormon Women for Ethical Government, School District No. 281 in Latah County, and the Idaho Education Association. Individual petitioners Jerry Evans, Marta Hernandez, Stephanie Mickelsen, Alexis Morgan, and Kristine Anderson also joined the case, with some acting on behalf of their minor children.
The petitioners filed the case as private attorneys general representing the broader public interest of Idaho residents. This legal designation allows private parties to bring cases on behalf of the general public when state authorities fail to act on matters of public concern.
The case centered on a challenge to the Idaho State Tax Commission's authority, though the specific nature of the disputed actions was not detailed in the court's filing header. The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, an extraordinary remedy that would have prevented the commission from taking certain actions they argued exceeded its constitutional authority.
A writ of prohibition is a judicial order that prevents a government entity or lower court from proceeding with actions that exceed their jurisdiction or violate legal standards. Such writs are considered extraordinary remedies, typically granted only when petitioners can demonstrate that the respondent is acting without proper authority and that no other adequate remedy exists.
The Idaho State Legislature intervened in the case as an additional respondent, indicating the constitutional and statutory interpretation issues at stake likely involved legislative authority or intent. The legislature's participation suggests the dispute may have involved questions about the proper scope of executive agency power versus legislative prerogatives.
Representing the petitioners was the Boise law firm Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, with attorneys Marvin M. Smith and Marvin K. Smith handling oral arguments. Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador's office represented the state, with Michael A. Zarian arguing the case. The legislature was represented by Givens Pursley LLP of Boise.
The involvement of education-focused organizations and school districts suggests the underlying dispute may have concerned tax policies or administrative actions affecting education funding or school operations. The Idaho Education Association, as the state's largest teachers' union, typically engages in litigation involving education policy, school funding, or teacher rights.
The presence of parent-petitioners acting on behalf of their children indicates potential impacts on families and students. When parents join education-related constitutional challenges as representatives of their minor children, it often signals concerns about how government actions might affect educational opportunities or family rights.
The Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution's involvement suggests broader constitutional interpretation issues beyond specific education concerns. Such organizations typically focus on ensuring government actions comply with state constitutional requirements and limitations on government power.
Mormon Women for Ethical Government's participation indicates potential concerns about government accountability and ethical governance standards. This organization often advocates for transparent and responsible government operations consistent with ethical principles.
The Idaho Supreme Court's denial of the petition means the Tax Commission's challenged actions will be allowed to proceed. When courts deny writs of prohibition, they typically find either that the respondent agency is acting within its proper authority or that the petitioners have failed to meet the high standards required for such extraordinary relief.
The denial does not necessarily indicate the court's view on the merits of the underlying policy dispute. Courts may deny prohibition writs if petitioners have other adequate legal remedies available, such as administrative appeals or different types of litigation.
The case reflects ongoing tensions in Idaho between various constituencies and state agencies over the proper scope of government authority. Education advocacy groups have increasingly challenged state actions they view as exceeding constitutional limitations or harming public education.
The ruling maintains the status quo regarding the Tax Commission's authority while the underlying policy disputes continue through other channels. The involvement of multiple advocacy groups and the legislature suggests these issues will likely continue to generate public debate and potential future litigation.
The case demonstrates how constitutional challenges can unite diverse advocacy groups around shared concerns about government overreach or improper agency actions. The coalition included religious, educational, and constitutional advocacy organizations working together despite potentially different policy priorities.
The timing of the case, with the opinion filed in February 2026, suggests these constitutional questions arose during recent legislative sessions or administrative actions. The specific docket number 53264-2025 indicates the petition was filed in 2025, showing the matter proceeded relatively quickly through the state's highest court.