Carson v. Makin

Last updated

Carson v. Makin
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 2021
Decided June 21, 2022
Full case nameDavid Carson, as Parent and Next Friend of O. C., et al. v. A. Pender Makin, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education
Docket no. 20-1088
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Holding
Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for the otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
DissentBreyer, joined by Kagan; Sotomayor (all but Part I–B)
DissentSotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue .

Contents

The case centered on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the use of vouchers to pay for religious-based private schools. In a 6–3 decision the Court ruled that Maine's restrictions on vouchers violated the Free Exercise Clause, as they discriminated against religious-backed private schools. The minority opinions argued that the decision worked against the long-standing principle of the separation of church and state, since state governments would now be required to fund religious institutions.

Background

Many U.S. states offer tuition assistance for private schools in lieu of public schools for primary education, using school vouchers. But several states have established in their constitutions, by way of a Blaine Amendment or similar wording, that the state cannot fund religious schools. [1] About half Maine's students live in rural areas, many of which lack public high schools. [2] Since 1873, Maine has provided tuition assistance program for residents of those areas to send their children to nearby public or private schools, which until 1980 included religious schools. The tuition covers board and travel, amounting to about $11,000 as of 2021. The program funds around 11 nonsectarian private schools across the state, handling approximately 4,800 students, and additional nonsectarian schools in neighboring states. [3] Maine changed the program in 1980 to prohibit the vouchers from being used at secular schools run by religious organizations on the basis that funding such schools violates the U.S. and state constitutions, specifically the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. [4]

During the Trump administration, school choice became a major issue under President Donald Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. [2] Trump urged Congress to pass legislation to support school choice and vouchers, including for religious schools, [5] but failed to gain sufficient support due to conflicts in the Senate and the unlikely chance of its success in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. [6]

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (536 U.S. 695 (2002)) had established that an Ohio voucher program that allowed parents to use the vouchers for private religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause. [7] Before Carson, the Supreme Court ruled in two precedent cases. In the first, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (582 U.S. ___ (2017)), the Court ruled that denying a religious school in Missouri the funds to rebuild a playground while providing funds to non-secular schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and that government programs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in their operations. [1] In the second, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (591 U.S. ___ (2020)), the Court held that if states do offer such assistance, they cannot prevent such tuition from being used for religious schools simply because the schools are religious. [8]

Lower courts

In 2018, the Institute for Justice took representation of two Maine families to challenge the exclusion of sectarian schools from Maine's program. [1] [8] The filing argued that per Trinity Lutheran, "The government must remain neutral with regard to religion—neither favoring nor disfavoring it—and the participants must exercise a genuine choice between religious and nonreligious options." [1] As the voucher program discriminated against religious schools, the program was not neutral and therefore unconstitutional. [1] The Institute also backed a second case in Washington state over its work-study program that prevented participants from being employed by religious organizations, [1] though this case was ultimately dismissed.

The families' case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which found for the state in 2019. [9] [10] The case was appealed to the First Circuit. While it was in preparation for hearing, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Espinoza, and the families filed a new brief asking the First Circuit to factor Espinoza into its deliberations. [10] The First Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, ruling that since Maine's program based its voucher allowance on whether schools teach and proselytize religion with the voucher funds, rather than whether schools are run by religious organizations, the program fell within the separation of church and state. [8]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on July 2, 2021. Oral arguments were held on December 8, 2021. [3] The state argued that its program does provide school vouchers for private schools with "substantially the same education provided in the public schools", and do not choose to fund those that have a significant religious teaching component. [3] The state also contended that the program was not a school choice program, but intended to aid students where there is otherwise no local high school in reasonably close distance for them to attend. [3] The families' council argued that if Maine's program allows parents to decide on an alternative to a public school for their children, "it has to remain neutral as between religious and non-religious private schools". [3] The Cato Institute, Hillsdale College, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, and The Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Civil Liberties Union, and the National School Boards Association filed amicus briefs in support of the respondent. [11]

Ruling

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on ideological lines that Maine's nonsectarian requirement for tuition assistance violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, struck down the Maine law, and reversed the First Circuit. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by five other Justices. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion joined fully by Justice Elena Kagan and partially by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor wrote a separate dissenting opinion. [12]

Opinion of the Court

In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the State violated the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution by preventing religious observers from receiving public benefits. He cited various cases where the court struck down actions that did so, such as Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran. He wrote that the Maine legislature excluded "private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds" and that such exclusion separates of church and state more than intended under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. He wrote that, on the basis of Zelman, "a benefit program under which private citizens 'direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice' [13] does not offend the Establishment Clause." The court ruled that Maine purposely "identif[ies] and exclude[s] otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise" and that that is "discrimination against religion". [14] [7]

Dissents

Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion joined fully by Kagan and partially by Sotomayor. Sotomayor wrote a separate dissenting opinion. [15] Breyer expressed concern that Carson v. Makin could require states to fund religious schools with taxpayer money, writing that the ruling paid "almost no attention" to the First Amendment's prohibitions on the state's establishment of religion while "giving almost exclusive attention" the Amendment's prohibitions on religious free exercise. [16] He also wrote that the ruling broke with historical precedent, that Supreme Court had "never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education." [17]

In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that in five years, the Court had "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." [15] She argued that Carson "continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build." [18]

Analysis

While only one other state, Vermont, had a voucher program similar to Maine's, analysts anticipated that the decision would spur religious groups to seek similar programs in conservative states. [17] Supporters of the ruling, including several religious groups, said the ruling would enhance religious liberties and "school-choice." [17]

Many critics believe that the ruling in this case is a "further erosion" of the separation of church and state. [9]

Steve Vladeck of CNN wrote that this ruling would put state "government[s] in the awkward position of having to choose between directly funding religious activity or not providing funding at all". [17]

Related Research Articles

A school voucher, also called an education voucher in a voucher system, is a certificate of government funding for students at schools chosen by themselves or their parents. Funding is usually for a particular year, term, or semester. In some countries, states, or local jurisdictions, the voucher can be used to cover or reimburse home schooling expenses. In some countries, vouchers only exist for tuition at private schools.

School choice is a term for education options that allow students and families to select alternatives to public schools. It is the subject of fierce debate in various state legislatures across the United States.

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions regarding the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for Justice</span> American libertarian non-profit public interest law firm

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. It has litigated ten cases before the United States Supreme Court dealing with eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers, tax credits for private school tuition, civil asset forfeiture, and residency requirements for liquor license. The organization was founded on September 3, 1991. As of 2023, it employed a staff of 157 full-time staff members in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blaine Amendment</span> Failed amendment to the United States Constitution

The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Most state constitutions already had such provisions, and thirty-eight of the fifty states have clauses that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the power of a state to use its tax-supported public school system to aid religious instruction. The case was a test of the separation of church and state with respect to education.

Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (1964), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia's decision to close all local, public schools and provide vouchers to attend private schools were constitutionally impermissible as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Liberty Institute</span> American religious liberty advocacy organization

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization based in Plano, Texas.

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.

In the United States, scholarship tax credits, also called tax credit scholarships, education tax credits or tuition tax credits, are a form of school choice that allows individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit from state taxes against donations made to non-profit organizations that grant private school scholarships. At the start of the 2014–2015 school year, fourteen states had scholarship tax credit programs.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Smith, Samuel (August 23, 2018). "New Lawsuits Target States Discriminating Against Religious Schools in Funding Programs". The Christian Post . Archived from the original on June 22, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  2. 1 2 DelReal, Jose A.; Brown, Emma (February 10, 2017). "Where school choice isn't an option, rural public schools worry they'll be left behind". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on December 20, 2021. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Totenberg, Nina (December 8, 2021). "Supreme Court weighs mandating public funds for religious schools in Maine". NPR . Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  4. ↑ Smith, Samuel (October 30, 2020). "Appeals court upholds Maine's ban on religious schools in school choice program". The Christian Post . Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  5. ↑ Danilova, Maria (May 3, 2017). "Trump asks Congress to extend school choice nationwide". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 22, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022– via PBS.
  6. ↑ Camera, Lauren (October 1, 2019). "DeVos Tries Breathing New Life Into Tax Credit Scholarships". U.S. News & World Report . Archived from the original on June 22, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  7. 1 2 Whelan, Ed (June 21, 2022). "Court's Excellent Free-Exercise Ruling in Carson v. Makin". National Review . Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
  8. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (July 2, 2021). "Justices add one religious-rights case to docket but turn down another". SCOTUSblog . Archived from the original on July 2, 2021. Retrieved July 2, 2021.
  9. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (June 21, 2022). "Supreme Court Rejects Maine's Ban on Aid to Religious Schools". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  10. 1 2 Blad, Evie (June 30, 2020). "What the Supreme Court's Ruling on Religious Schools Means in Practice". Education Week . Archived from the original on June 22, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  11. ↑ "Carson v. Makin". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 28, 2023.
  12. ↑ "Carson v. Makin" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 21, 2022. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  13. ↑ "Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 652 (2002)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 13, 2022. Retrieved June 24, 2022.
  14. ↑ "Carson v. Makin" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 21, 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  15. 1 2 "Court strikes down Maine's ban on using public funds at religious schools". SCOTUSblog. June 21, 2022. Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  16. ↑ Vile, John R. (2021). "Carson v. Makin (June 21, 2022)". Carson v. Makin. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 28, 2023.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed and Chandelis Duster (June 21, 2022). "Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs". CNN. Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  18. ↑ "Sotomayor accuses supreme court conservatives of dismantling church-state separation". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 21, 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.