|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are
solely
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
|
Education Dive
Supreme Court: Public money can be used for religious education
Alex Hickey, Linda Jacobson
June 30, 2020
BRIEF:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday in favor of a Montana mother
who wanted to use the state’s tax credit-funded scholarship to send her
children to a Christian school, giving school choice advocates, and the
Trump administration, a major victory.
Two weeks after President Donald Trump called school choice “the civil
rights statement of the year, of the decade, and probably beyond,”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, that no "'historic
and substantial' tradition supports Montana’s decision to disqualify
religious schools from government aid."
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, plaintiff Kendra Espinoza
and two other families in the case argued the state took a hostile,
rather than neutral, stand toward religion when it invalidated the
scholarship program instead of letting the funds be used at a religious
school. The state’s action, according to the plaintiffs, violated the
free exercise, equal protection and establishment clauses of the First
Amendment.
INSIGHT:
The opinion is likely welcome news for the president, coming less than
a week after the court ruled June 18 that his administration’s effort
to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was
mishandled, leaving the policy in place for now.
The court’s decision, however, also comes not only as states are facing
large shortfalls because of the declining tax revenues, but also as
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been insisting states share
federal COVID-19 relief funds with private schools.
On trial, essentially, were states’ so-called “baby Blaine Amendments,”
which date back more than a century and have been described by the
Institute for Justice as “rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic
bigotry.” Montana is one of 37 states that has such an amendment — or
“no aid” statute — although interpretations of them vary at the state
level.
Roberts was joined in the opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel
A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Elena
Kagan.
|
|
|
|
