On standing grounds, the Supreme Court of Georgia has decided the Gaddy case in favor of the tax credit program.

https://efile.gasupreme.us/viewFiling?filingId=b72efb5d-a046-469d-8577-18d5106295b7

The Court decided that the Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law:

"We also reject the assertion that plaintiffs have standing because these tax credits actually amount to unconstitutional expenditures of tax revenues or public funds. The statutes that govern the Program demonstrate that only private funds, and not public revenue, are used." (page 10).

"Individuals and corporations chose the SSOs to which they wish to direct contributions; these private SSOs select the student recipients of the scholarships they award; and the students and their parents decide whether to use their scholarships at religious or other private schools. The State controls none of these decisions. Nor does it control the contributed funds or the educational entities that ultimately receive the funds." (page 11).

"Because each of the constitutional provisions relied upon by plaintiffs involve the expenditure of public funds, and the statutes that establish the Program demonstrate that no public funds are used in the Program, plaintiffs lack standing as taxpayers to assert these claims. Plaintiffs' complaint fails to show that they, or any taxpayers for that matter, are harmed by this Program. Likewise, we reject plaintiffs' argument that they have standing because public funds are illegally expended to administer the Program in that state employee time is used to process the filings for tax credits."

Court relied on SCOTUS precedent:

"These conclusions are supported by cases from federal and other state courts that have considered the issue of taxpayer standing to challenge the constitutionality of similar scholarship programs established by legislatures in other states. For example, in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 15 taxpayers challenged the Arizona tax credit scholarship program in federal court on federal Establishment Clause grounds." (page 13).

The Court decided that the Plaintiffs did not show cause that would support a mandamus action forcing the DOR to enforce the provisions of the law." (page 13).

"A careful reading of the complaint shows that plaintiffs have not alleged an actual violation of the statute has occurred, either on the part of any SSOs or on the part of the defendants who are charged with the duty to enforce the statute against the participating SSOs." (page 21).