|
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Maine violated the Constitution by prohibiting families from using public funding to attend private religiously-affiliated schools. Following a series of cases in recent years that favors proponents of religious liberty, The 6-3 decision paves the way for other states with voucher or education scholarship programs.
The court favors religious liberty
Carson v. Makin centered on a dispute between David and Amy Carson and Pender Makin, the Commissioner of Education in Maine.
Like many families in Maine, the Carsons lived in a rural community without a public high school. The state provides tuition assistance to cover the cost of a different public school or an approved private school. However, the state issued a rule that stipulated those funds could not be used for religious activity. The lower courts ruled that the Maine policy was in line with the separation of church and state.
Roberts' rulings
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that rule discriminated against religion and wrote, "Saying that Maine offers a benefit limited to private secular education is just another way of saying that Maine does not extend tuition assistance payments to parents who choose to educate their children at religious schools."
This decision followed other decisions that favored religious liberty, both issued by Roberts.
Those cases focused on an organization's religious status, whereas in Carson v. Makin, the court went a bit further and ruled that there is no real distinction between a school's religious status and its use of funds for religious purposes.
Sotomayor's disagrees
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed that the Supreme Court has "shift[ed] from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars."
As does the ACLU
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said:
“Maine’s policy to avoid government-funded religious education is rooted in our nation’s historical commitment to the separation of church and state. Today’s decision, like others in recent years, undermines this vital protection by forcing taxpayers to support religious instruction and indoctrination. It is the opposite of true religious freedom and a betrayal of our country’s founding principles.”
What this means for Missouri?
Aligned spoke with State Representative Phil Christofanelli following last week's ruling to find out how he envisions this ruling affecting education in the Show-Me State.
What are your thoughts on the ruling in Carson v. Makin?
Christofanelli: I was excited to see the court's decision but was not terribly surprised, given the precedence with Trinity and Espinoza. It's important to note that Trinity was a case that started right here in Missouri. We've shifted looking at school choice away from an establishment clause lens and towards a more religious liberty lens. And so, the Trinity Lutheran case was a really good example of how that started.
This is part of a long series of decisions that are set to undercut what are known as Blaine amendments. Blaine amendments are named after United States Senator James Blaine, who wanted to ban any public dollars from ever going to religion. He tried to put that in the United States Constitution and failed, so instead, he went around the country and helped sponsor baby Blaine amendments.
What will happen to Missouri's Blaine Amendment?
Christofanelli: The court has, through these series of decisions, really undermined and invalidated Blaine Amendments in state constitutions across the country like (Missouri's).
If you recall, during the ESA debate in 2021, there was a lot of debate over whether these kids could also go to religious schools? And the answer was yes. And you'd have people unless say, well, that's a violation of the establishment clause, and the Supreme court has made it clear that no, it's not. And I'm glad that religious schools will be able to participate because you will find that the vast majority of private schools are religiously affiliated.
So this is a good precedent. I think it solidifies the argument that these programs are not unconstitutional and we should have more of them because they're good for kids.
| 
