SCOTUS Delivers Major Victory for Religious Education
On Tuesday (6/21), the Supreme Court issued what’s already being called a landmark ruling regarding Carson v. Makin, a case concerning religious liberty and education.
The State of Maine is predominantly rural to the point that the majority of Maine public school districts don’t actually have any schools. Because of this, the Maine Legislature passed a series of bills to allow taxpayer funds to be awarded to certain private schools. Here’s the catch: These private schools had to be “nonsectarian.” What this meant is that religious schools were excluded from the possibility of receiving state funds, meaning that children with minimal access to schooling were denied one possible option.
Two Maine families were the plaintiffs of this suit, though now the kids are graduated and not able to benefit from the ruling. The families had wanted to send their children to Christian schools that taught from a conservative, biblical perspective. This perspective includes a traditional approach to marriage and sexuality.
The court ruled in 6-3 split generally along conservative/liberal lines with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the conservatives. The majority opinion states that excluding certain schools solely on the basis of religion is flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Roberts, in the majority opinion, aptly states, “There is nothing neutral about Maine’s program.” Indeed, the majority opinion exposes the ‘myth of neutrality’ that many people, including religious people, buy into. Roberts also wrote, “Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” The incredulity of the ‘nonsectarian’ claim is exposed by Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey’s reaction to the ruling. Frey said that he found it “disturbing that the Supreme Court found that parents…have the right to force the public to pay for an education that is fundamentally at odds with values we hold dear.” What are these values that AG Frey (and according to him, the State of Maine) holds dear? They are gender-politics and LGBTQ advocacy. These values stem from a worldview that is certainly not ‘nonsectarian.’ Roberts and the majority court were right to call out the myth of neutrality for what it is: a myth . . . and not a good one.
In contrast to what Frey claimed about taxpayers being forced to pay for religious education, the majority opinion also notes that this ruling is not claiming that states must fund religious education. However, Maine has chosen to fund certain private schools and not-fund others solely on the basis of religion. That, the court maintained, is a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
The other important religious liberty clause in the First Amendment is the Establishment Clause, that the federal government cannot establish or promote one religion over another. This case has been seen as a tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. However, this all depends on what one thinks the Establishment Clause is saying. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor stated that through the ruling, “the court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.” Clearly, Sotomayor sees the Establishment Clause as intending a strict “Wall of Separation” between church and state to the point that any ruling or law that leads to any sort of interaction between government and religion that benefits religion is unconstitutional. (Note: that phrase “wall of separation” has a long history with diverse understandings.) Yet, as mentioned earlier, the majority opinion did not rule that funds must go to religious entities. Rather, it ruled that if funds are already going to similar entities (private schools in this case), then religious entities cannot be excluded simply because of religious exercise and belief.
Many are already noting the significance of this case for the school choice debate. Senators Ben Sasse, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and others praised the ruling for expanding religious and educational liberties for families. As noted above, dissenters like Sotomayer and Frey also understand the importance of this ruling. How the Maine government will react this ruling is yet to be seen as the Maine Legislature does not reconvene until September.
