Proponents of school choice and religious freedom have just won at SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court has won a major victory for both school choices and religious freedom advocates in 2020, when it held a Espinoza v. Ministry of Revenue in Montanathat if the state provides educational subsidies that help parents send their children to private schools, the state “cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious.”

IN 6-3 solution issued today, the court has repeatedly cited Espinosis while bringing another great victory for school choice and religious freedom. The question is in Carson v. Makin was whether the Maine Learning Support Program violated the Constitution by excluding private schools that offer “sectarian” education. In the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court found that the state was in a constitutional error.

“There is nothing neutral about the Maine program,” Roberts wrote, joined by Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett. “The state pays tuition for certain students in private schools – as long as the schools are not religious. This is discrimination against religion. The anti-established interest of the state does not justify decrees that exclude certain members of the community from otherwise public benefit because of their religious practices. “

Writing disagreement, Judge Stephen Brier, joined by Judges Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of circumventing the First Amendment ban against the government.[ing] [any] law Respect the establishment of religion. “According to Breyer, Maine wants to provide children in the state with a secular, public education” and nothing in the First Amendment prevents the state from doing just that. “Religion clauses give Maine the right to respect that neutrality,” Breyer said. by choosing not to fund religious schools as part of its public school curriculum. “

Today’s result is not a big surprise. In December 2021 oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts pressured Maine’s deputy attorney general to explain why the state’s approach did not constitute unconstitutional religious discrimination. It seemed clear from their oral arguments that the answers given by the state’s lawyer would never convince the majority of the court.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.