The argument in Carson v. Makin is over Maine’s tuition assistance program, which pays for students in towns without a public school to attend another one of their choice — public or private — as long as it’s not religious.
This article appeared earlier today on bangordailynews.com. You can find a link to the full court decision here.
A conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Maine’s ban on public funding for religious schools was unconstitutional and violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
The 6-3 decision was expected based on questions from the justices at oral arguments in December and the appointment of three conservatives by former President Donald Trump.
“Maine has chosen to offer tuition assistance that parents may direct to the public or private schools of their choice,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 45-page majority opinion, adding that the law “effectively penalizes the free exercise of religion.”
“Maine’s administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any public benefit program—including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient’s religious exercise.”
He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
“What a difference five years makes,” Sotomayor wrote. “In 2017, I feared that the Court was ‘leading us to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.’ Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.”
Despite concerns expressed by the Maine School Management Association and the Maine Education Association, supporters of lifting the ban don’t expect money to start flowing to religious schools without changes to other state laws that advocates for religious schools are now eyeing.
Those changes could come if Republicans win legislative majorities and the governor’s office this fall, but they’re more likely to come from further legal action in Maine and outside the state, according to Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.
The case, Carson v. Makin, challenged a state law under which districts without public high schools pay tuition so local students can attend a public or private school of their choice in another community, as long as it’s not a religious school. At issue was whether Maine was barring funds from going to religious schools because they would use the money for religious purposes or simply because they are religiously affiliated.
Families who attend faith-based schools in Maine received good news today when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a potentially landmark case that could settle the issue of whether families can be barred from using education choice scholarships to send their children to religious schools that conduct religious activities.
The case, Carson v. Makin, involves a town tuition program that grants school choice scholarships to families who live in towns where no district high schools are located. The state, however, will not allow families to choose religious schools that teach religion or conduct religious activities.
The case has been moving through the court system for three years, with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1st Circuit siding with the state in October. A three-judge panel said that the program’s limited scope separated it from other programs in which courts ruled that those bans were unconstitutional.
Maine’s ban, they said, was based on the schools’ use of state aid for religious activities, not merely the school’s status. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the status question last year when it ruled in Espinoza v. Montana that a school could not be barred from participating in a state scholarship program simply for being a religious school.
(For an analysis of each case, see here and here.)
Attorneys for the plaintiffs praised the court’s decision to hear the case.
“By singling out religion—and only religion—for exclusion from its tuition assistance program, Maine violates the U.S. Constitution,” said Senior Attorney Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice, which is representing the Carson family and other plaintiffs. “The state flatly bans parents from choosing schools that offer religious instruction. That is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to hold that such religious ‘use’ discrimination in student-aid programs is just as unconstitutional as the religious ‘status’ discrimination it held unconstitutional in Espinoza.”
“In student-aid programs like Maine’s, parents—not the government—choose the schools their children will attend,” said IJ Managing Attorney Arif Panju. “If parents believe a school that aligns with their faith is best for their child, the state should not be allowed to deny them that choice.”
“The Court’s decision to hear this appeal is a tremendously important development not only for Maine families, but for all families who simply want access to the schools that will best serve their children’s needs,” added Bindas. “If a family believes that a school that provides religious instruction is the best option for their child, they should be permitted to choose it, just as they should be permitted to choose a school with a strong STEM curriculum, language immersion classes or a robust arts program.”
