Supreme Court lifts ban on state aid to religious schooling

People hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington Jan. 22, 2020, ahead of oral arguments in a case from Montana on religious rights and school choice. The court is examining if states should give aid, in the form of tax credits, to private religious schools. (CNS photo/Sarah Silbiger, Reuters)People hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington Jan. 22, 2020, ahead of oral arguments in a case from Montana on religious rights and school choice. The court is examining if states should give aid, in the form of tax credits, to private religious schools. (CNS photo/Sarah Silbiger, Reuters)

In a 5-4 ruling June 30, the Supreme Court said the exclusion of religious schools in Montana's state scholarship aid program violated the federal Constitution.

In the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that if a state offers financial assistance to private schools, it has to allow religious schools to also take part. Separate dissents were written by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Advertisement

Roberts said the decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate the school scholarship program because it would provide funding to both religious schools and secular schools "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools."

[Don’t miss the latest news from the church and the world. Sign up for our daily newsletter.]

"The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school," he wrote.

Advocates for school choice praised the decision. "The weight that this monumental decision carries is immense, as it's an extraordinary victory for student achievement, parental control, equality in educational opportunities and First Amendment rights," said Jeanne Allen, founder and chief executive of the Center for Education Reform.

The case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, was brought to the court by three Montana mothers who had been sending their children to Stillwater Christian School in Kalispell with the help of a state scholarship program.

The program, created in 2015, was meant to provide $3 million a year for tax credits for individuals and business taxpayers who donated up to $150 to the program. It was helping about 45 students and just months after it got started, the Montana Department of Revenue issued an administrative rule saying the tax credit donations could only go toward nonreligious, private schools -- explaining the use of tax credits for religious schools violated the state's constitution.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

The mothers were represented by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit legal advocacy group based in Virginia. In 2015, these mothers sued the state saying that barring religious schools from the scholarship program violated the federal constitution. The trial court agreed with them, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The court based its decision on the state constitution's ban on funding religious organizations, called the Blaine Amendment.

Thirty-seven states have Blaine amendments, which prohibit spending public funds on religious education. These bans date back to the 19th century and are named for Rep. James Blaine of Maine, who tried unsuccessfully in 1875 to have the U.S. Constitution prohibit the use of public funds for "sectarian" schools.

[Read more: “How James G. Blaine became the face of anti-Catholicism in education”]

In oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the amendments reflected "grotesque religious bigotry" against Catholics. Adam Unikowsky, Montana's attorney, argued that the state's revised constitution in 1972 does not have "evidence whatsoever of any anti-religious bigotry."

A statement issued by two committee chairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops the day of oral arguments in this case said the Blaine amendments at issue here "were never meant to ensure government neutrality toward religion but were expressions of hostility toward the Catholic Church. We hope that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to bring an end to this shameful legacy."

It said the Montana case "concerns whether the Constitution offers states a license to discriminate against religion."

The USCCB also filed a friend-of-the-court brief, along with several other religious groups, in support of the plaintiffs, which said: "Families that use private schools should not suffer government discrimination because their choice of school is religious."

A group of Montana Catholic school parents also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief stressing that state Blaine amendments "should be declared unconstitutional once and for all."

Before the case was argued, Richard Garnett, director of the University of Notre Dame's Program on Church, State and Society, said it could have major implications for education-reform debates and policies and it "could remove, or at least reduce, one of the legal barriers to choice-based reforms like scholarship programs and tax credits for low-income families."

This story has been updated.

We don’t have comments turned on everywhere anymore. We have recently relaunched the commenting experience at America and are aiming for a more focused commenting experience with better moderation by opening comments on a select number of articles each day.

But we still want your feedback. You can join the conversation about this article with us in social media on Twitter or Facebook, or in one of our Facebook discussion groups for various topics.

Or send us feedback on this article with one of the options below:

We welcome and read all letters to the editor but, due to the volume received, cannot guarantee a response.

In order to be considered for publication, letters should be brief (around 200 words or less) and include the author’s name and geographic location. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

We open comments only on select articles so that we can provide a focused and well-moderated discussion on interesting topics. If you think this article provides the opportunity for such a discussion, please let us know what you'd like to talk about, or what interesting question you think readers might want to respond to.

If we decide to open comments on this article, we will email you to let you know.

If you have a message for the author, we will do our best to pass it along. Note that if the article is from a wire service such as Catholic News Service, Religion News Service, or the Associated Press, we will not have direct contact information for the author. We cannot guarantee a response from any author.

We welcome any information that will help us improve the factual accuracy of this piece. Thank you.

Please consult our Contact Us page for other options to reach us.

When you click submit, this article page will reload. You should see a message at the top of the reloaded page confirming that your feedback has been received.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Join the editor in chief of America magazine for a conversation in the comments section on Friday, Sept. 18, 1 to 2 p.m. ET, about the magazine’s coverage of this historic election.
Matt Malone, S.J.September 17, 2020
People displaced from the destroyed Moria refugee camp sit by fires along a road on the Greek island of Lesbos Sept. 15, 2020. The camp, which was mostly destroyed in fires Sept. 9, was home to at least 12,000 people, six times its maximum capacity of just over 2,000 asylum-seekers. (CNS photo/Alkis Konstantinidis, Reuters)
The overcrowded, underequipped Camp Moria, had an official capacity for just 2,800. Its population had been as high as 20,000 refugees, a number reduced to about 12,000 at the time of the fires.
A voter in Louisville, Ky., completes his ballot for his state’s primary election, held on June 23. (CNS photo/Bryan Woolston, Reuters)
Even small shifts in the Catholic vote, which covers a lot of ground both geographically and ideologically, could make the difference in the presidential election, writes Robert David Sullivan.
Robert David SullivanSeptember 17, 2020
President Donald Trump arrives to deliver remarks about judicial appointments at the White House in Washington Sept. 9, 2020 (CNS photo/Jonathan Ernst, Reuters).
As a Catholic who embraces the church’s teaching on the innate value of every human life, the importance of public order and the need for mercy to temper justice, I am very comfortable supporting the reelection of our president.
Teresa S. CollettSeptember 17, 2020