TALLAHASSEE—Saying Florida is not barred from using tax dollars to send children to private schools, a state appeals court yesterday overturned a ruling that would have killed Gov. Jeb Bush's school-vouchers program.

A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that a Tallahassee-based circuit judge erred in March when he ruled the controversial program violates the state Constitution.

The panel said nothing in the Constitution "clearly prohibits the Legislature from allowing the well-delineated use of public funds for private school education, particularly in circumstances where the Legislature finds such use is necessary."

The 20-page opinion delighted backers of the program, which lawmakers approved in 1999 but was immediately challenged by groups such as teachers unions and the NAACP. Florida's program has become a key part of a nationwide battle over vouchers.

"I think it continues to support the notion that parents deserve more choice in their child's educational opportunity," Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan said.

But the ruling does not end the legal fight, which is expected to last for years. Dexter Douglass, an attorney for anti-voucher groups, said opponents will ask the Florida Supreme Court to consider an appeal of yesterday's ruling.

"We don't agree with this, of course, and we plan to take it to the Supreme Court," Douglass said.

Also, Circuit Judge L. Ralph Smith has not decided other challenges to the program, including whether it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Smith would still have to hold a trial to decide those issues.

After months of bitter debate last year, the Legislature passed the vouchers program as part of Bush's "A-plus" education reform plan. Under the plan, children who attend chronically failing schools can receive vouchers to transfer to private schools.

Students at two failing Pensacola elementary schools became eligible for the program during the 1999-2000 school year. But with test scores rising throughout the state, no other students became eligible this year.

Smith allowed the program to continue while the case is appealed. In all, 51 Pensacola children received vouchers this year.

Voucher opponents argue the program violates the state and federal constitutions and will strip much-needed money from public schools. Along with objecting to the use of tax dollars in private schools, they say the program improperly sends money to religious schools.

But backers of the program say it offers choices to families who otherwise would be trapped in low-performing schools.

Clint Bolick, a Washington-based attorney for parents of Pensacola voucher students, said the "kids won a big one" with yesterday's ruling.

"We are jubilant," said Bolick, litigation director for the Institute for Justice, a group involved in voucher battles throughout the country. "The constitutional cloud has been removed, at least for the time being."

Smith ruled the state could not use tax dollars for private schools because part of the Constitution calls for providing education through a "uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public schools."

But the appeals court yesterday flatly rejected that reasoning.

It said the Constitution does not limit the state's duty of providing education to a "single specified engine, that being the public school system."

Douglass said he was not surprised by the ruling.

During an August hearing, the appeals-court judges repeatedly questioned attorneys for voucher opponents.

"At oral argument, it was clear that the judges had pretty much made up their minds, and we were prepared for this," said Douglass, who served as general counsel to former Gov. Lawton Chiles.

But state Solicitor General Tom Warner, who argued the case before the appeals court, said the ruling "vindicates" the program's supporters.

"The critics of the school vouchers plan kept saying, 'You're wrong, you're never going to get this through,' " said Warner, who was a member of the state House when the program passed.

Warner said he will oppose the Supreme Court taking up an appeal of the ruling.

He said he would favor Smith holding a trial to consider all the issues in the case.

"I think the argument to be made here is, 'Look, we're wasting a lot of time piecemealing the issues in this case,' " Warner said.