Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Last updated

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 22, 2020
Decided June 30, 2020
Full case nameKendra Espinoza, et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue, et al.
Docket no. 18-1195
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2246; 207 L. Ed. 2d 679
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorEspinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 2018 MT 306, 393 Mont. 446, 435 P.3d 603; cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2777 (2019).
Holding
The application of the no-aid provision discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the Federal Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Gorsuch
ConcurrenceAlito
ConcurrenceGorsuch
DissentGinsburg, joined by Kagan
DissentBreyer, joined by Kagan (Part I)
DissentSotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5]

Contents

Background

Kendra Espinoza, primary plaintiff, on Reason TV in 2020 Kendra Espinoza on Reason TV.jpg
Kendra Espinoza, primary plaintiff, on Reason TV in 2020

The state of Montana passed a special income tax credit program in 2015 to help fund non-profit scholarship organizations to help low-income families pay for private schools. For tax payers, they were able to pay up to US$150 into the program and receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit to support it. This type of tax-credit scholarship program for private school selection is similar to ones in eighteen other states as of 2019. [6]

Montana, as with 37 other states, have so-called Blaine amendments in their constitutions which were originally designed to prevent funding Catholic schools in the 19th century. [7] [3] Jonathan A. Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the continued purpose of these Blaine amendments "serve significant government interests — leaving the support of churches to church members, while also protecting houses of worship against discrimination and interference from the government." [8]

Montana's constitution bars the uses of "any direct or indirect appropriations or payment" to any religious organizations or schools affiliated with religious organizations, also known as the "no-aid" provision. [7] The Montana Department of Revenue (DoR) developed the program's rules around the no-aid provision and disallowed religious-affiliated schools from receiving any of the scholarship money, otherwise known as "Rule 1". [9] Rule 1 was controversial even within the state government, as both state legislators and the attorney general had asserted it was not needed, but the DoR implemented it against their cautions, asserting that the scholarship funds were equivalent to appropriations and thus covered by the no-aid provision. [9]

Three low-income families who had children attended Stillwater Christian School in Flathead County and would have been eligible for scholarships through the program outside of their school choice filed a lawsuit against the state and sought an injunction against the program, asserting that Rule 1 unnecessary against the no-aid provision and that it discriminated against them due to their religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [9] Their lawsuit was supported by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit organization that has fought against state laws that enforce the Blaine amendments in their constitutions. [1] They obtained the injunction to block the DoR from enforcing the rule in April 2016. [9] The state began to appeal this ruling, but otherwise continued the program with the ordered injunction, which allowed additional scholarships to be granted for several children attending Stillwater.

The state's appeal to the Montana Supreme Court was decided in December 2018, which ruled in a 5–2 decision that the entire program was unconstitutional because it benefited religious schools. [10] The Court majority stated that the "[Constitution of Montana] more broadly prohibits 'any' state aid to sectarian schools and draws a more stringent line than that drawn by [the U.S. Constitution]." [11] Further, the Court found that even with the DoR's Rule 1 in place, the program still could not prevent any type of aid from the program from ending up at a religious school, and thus nullified the entire program. [10] [11]

Supreme Court

The families petitioned to the United States Supreme Court for review, seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's decision to terminate the program on the basis of the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in June 2019. [6]

Oral arguments were heard on January 22, 2020. The Justices focused on whether the Montana Supreme Court's decision to shut down the entire program was discriminatory towards the secular schools, as well as trying to resolve this case with recent decision related to the Free Exercise Clause, such as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer , [12] in which the Court previously ruled that blocking public funds to be used by a church to improve playground safety was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. [7]

Majority opinion

The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2020. [13] The 5–4 decision reversed the Montana Supreme Court's ruling and remanded the case. [14] [15] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote in his opinion that the no-aid provision (Rule 1) in the program violated the Free Exercise clause, [16] as it "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools" and "also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school." [17] Roberts also asserted that the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to invalidate the entire program on the basis of the no-aid provision in the state constitution. [17] Roberts wrote that "A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious." [1] Roberts based part of the majority's opinion on the previous Trinity case where the public funds were used for a non-secular purpose (church playground improvement), while contrasting it from the decision of Locke v. Davey , [18] where the Court found that preventing the use of public scholarship funds for students entering into theology studies was constitutional. [19]

Concurrences

Justice Thomas wrote his own concurrence which was joined by Gorsuch. While he agreed with the judgement, Thomas believed the court should have relied on the Establishment Clause, in which the scholarship program, without Rule 1, would not have established any government-backed support of any specific religion. [20]

Alito's concurrent discussed the history of the Blaine amendments, including mention of the 1871 political cartoon by Thomas Nast "The American River Ganges". American river Ganges crop.jpg
Alito's concurrent discussed the history of the Blaine amendments, including mention of the 1871 political cartoon by Thomas Nast "The American River Ganges".

Justice Alito also concurred. Alito cited the Court's earlier decision in Ramos v. Louisiana , [21] in which judgement was partially based on the motivation of outdated Jim Crow laws in the nature of jury verdicts. Alito wrote that the no-aid provision in Montana's constitution must be considered the same way: "Montana's no-aid provision was modeled on the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, which was prompted by virulent prejudice against Catholic immigrants. Montana's claim that the provision merely reflects a state interest in preserving public schools ignores that the public-school (or common-school) movement at the time was itself anti-Catholic. It is also not clear that the anti-Catholic animus was scrubbed from the no-aid provision when it was re-adopted at Montana's constitutional convention in 1972." [20] [22]

Justice Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence, emphasizing that the Free Exercise Clause "protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly. Our cases have long recognized the importance of protecting religious actions, not just religious status." [20]

Dissents

Separate dissents were written by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, with Justice Elena Kagan joining on both Ginsburg and Breyer's dissents. Ginsburg, in her dissent, acknowledged to Roberts' point that states are not required to subsidize private education and in the case of Montana, their court discontinued the program, which does not affect the Free Exercise Clause. She wrote, "Petitioners may still send their children to a religious school... There simply are no scholarship funds to be had." [23] [24] Sotomayor called the majority's ruling "perverse" in requiring Montana "to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place." [25]

Impact

The Espinoza decision was considered likely to impact subsequent rules in the 38 states with Blaine amendments. [7] [3] [26] At the time of the decision, 17 states had scholarship programs similar to Montana's. However, some of these, including Florida and Indiana, had already found ways to permit such funds to be used for selection of religious schools, despite no-aid clauses in their constitutions. The Institute for Justice, which represented the parents, planned to use the ruling to challenge programs in Maine and Vermont which blocked such use of funds. Then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a proponent of school choice and of a federal-level tax-credit program, also praised the decision. [27]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of 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">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.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Before this decision, the clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2006

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated to the high court by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served on it since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, Alito is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

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.

Michael William McConnell is an American jurist who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 to 2009. Since 2009, McConnell has been a professor and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is also a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and Senior Of Counsel to the Litigation Practice Group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. In May 2020, Facebook appointed him to its content oversight board. In 2020, McConnell published The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution under Princeton University Press.

Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in devotional theology". This case examined the "room ... between the two Religion Clauses", the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the ecclesiastical exception, is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment of ministers or as to jobs with ministerial roles. As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2012 case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and serves two purposes: to safeguard the freedom of religious groups "to select their own ministers" and to prevent "government involvement in [...] ecclesiastical decisions". The first purpose is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause; the second, in the Establishment Clause. When the ministerial exception applies, it gives religious institutions an affirmative defense against lawsuits for discrimination. For example, a woman seeking to become a Catholic priest cannot sue the Catholic Church for sex discrimination over its position that women cannot be ordained as priests. The Supreme Court later elaborated on when employees qualify as ministerial – and thus how broadly the exception applies – in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020).

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

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.

McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that struck down the last remaining state restriction against religious ministers holding elected office.

Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Establishment Clause did not prevent the state of Washington from providing financial vocational assistance to a blind man who sought to study at a Christian college to become a pastor, missionary, or youth pastor. The Court ruled that the Establishment Clause does not prevent financial assistance from a state vocational rehabilitation program from being used for religious instruction.

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.

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.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (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.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Barnes, Robert (July 1, 2020). "Courts & Law: Supreme Court says states that subsidize private education must include religious schools". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020. In what advocates called a landmark ruling, Roberts said the religious protections of the U.S. Constitution prevail. It holds implications for public funding of religious institutions in other areas and continues a recent pattern of the Supreme Court erasing stark lines in the separation of church and state.
  2. ↑ John Kramer (Vice President for Communications) (June 30, 2020). "Landmark Victory for Parents In U.S. Supreme Court School Choice Case". Institute for Justice. Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
  3. 1 2 3 Finne, Liv (June 30, 2020). "Landmark Court ruling opens up education options for WA parents". Washington Policy Center. Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that by preventing these families from using tax credit scholarships at a private religious school, the state of Montana violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Today's ruling invalidates Montana's "no-aid" clause and the Blaine Amendments of 37 states, including the Blaine Amendment in Washington state's constitution.
  4. ↑ Howe, Amy (June 30, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court rules that religious schools cannot be excluded from state funding for private schools". SCOTUSblog . Archived from the original on July 3, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020. Today's decision was a landmark win for school-choice advocates.
  5. ↑ Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue,No. 18-1195 , 591 U.S. ___ (2020).
  6. 1 2 "Supreme Court to review Montana school choice program". Associated Press. June 28, 2019. Archived from the original on July 1, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (January 22, 2020). "Supreme Court Seems Ready to Lift Limits on State Aid to Religious Schools". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 30, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  8. ↑ Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court sides with religious institutions in a major church-state decision". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 28, 2020.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Michels, Holly (April 9, 2016). "Flathead families say school choice scholarships fill gap". Missoulian . Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  10. 1 2 Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 2018MT306 , 393 Mont. 446, 435 P.3d 603.
  11. 1 2 Walsh, Mark (December 23, 2018). "Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Tax-Credit Program for Private Schools". Education Week . Archived from the original on July 3, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  12. ↑ Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer ,No. 15-577 , 582 U.S. ___(2017).
  13. ↑ Sherman, Mark (June 30, 2020). "Supreme Court lifts ban on state aid to religious schooling". AP News . AP News. Archived from the original on June 18, 2021. Retrieved June 18, 2021.
  14. ↑ Case Comment, First Amendment-Free Exercise Clause- Government Aid to Religious Schools-Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , 134 Harv. L. Rev. 470(2020).
  15. ↑ "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 29, 2022. Retrieved July 4, 2022.
  16. ↑ Whelan, Ed (June 30, 2020). "Law & The Courts: Important Free Exercise Victory in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue". National Review. Archived from the original on March 16, 2022. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
  17. 1 2 Higgens, Tucker (June 30, 2020). "Supreme Court says Constitution protects Montana scholarship program that indirectly funds religious schools". CNBC . Archived from the original on June 30, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  18. ↑ Locke v. Davey , 540 U.S. 712 (2004).
  19. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 30, 2020). "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on State Aid to Religious Schools". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 30, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  20. 1 2 3 Whelan, Ed (June 30, 2020). "Concurring Opinions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue". National Review . Archived from the original on March 16, 2022. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
  21. ↑ Ramos v. Louisiana ,No. 18-5924 , 590 U.S. ___(2020).
  22. ↑ Keller, Aaron (June 30, 2020). "Justice Alito Cites 1871 Anti-Catholic Political Cartoon of Priests as Crocodiles in Religious Liberty Opinion". Law & Crime . Archived from the original on July 1, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
  23. ↑ Espinoza, slip op., at *3 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
  24. ↑ Wolf, Richard (June 30, 2020). "Supreme Court makes religious school education eligible for public aid". USA Today . Archived from the original on June 30, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  25. ↑ Espinoza, slip op., at *11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  26. ↑ Hirsen, James (July 2, 2020). "Symposium: A takedown of the Blaine Amendments". SCOTUSblog . Archived from the original on July 3, 2020. Retrieved July 3, 2020.
  27. ↑ Blad, Evie (June 30, 2020). "What the Supreme Court's Ruling on Religious Schools Means in Practice". Education Week . Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
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.