The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My NBC News Article on Today's Supreme Court Ruling Barring Discrimination Against Religious Schools in Maine School Choice Program
The decision is an important victory for both the principle of nondiscrimination and parents and students seeking better educational opportunities.
NBC News has just published my article on today's Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin, which bars state school choice programs from discriminating against "sectarian" religious schools.
Here is an excerpt:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a Maine law that excluded most religious private schools from a voucher program that is in place in similar secular schools. The 6-3 decision in Carson v. Makin is an important victory for the constitutional principle that government may not discriminate on the basis of religion. It may also help open up valuable opportunities for parents and students, particularly the disadvantaged.
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that a state-run voucher program may not exclude religious schools simply because of their "status" as religious institutions. As Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated in his opinion for the court Tuesday, a state may not "withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations" simply because they are religious….
Until now, the state of Maine has subsidized the cost of private schools providing the equivalent of a secular public school curriculum for the roughly 5,000 children who live in districts (school administrative units, in Maine parlance) too sparsely populated to support their own public school. However, Maine refuses to subsidize attendance at private schools with a religious curriculum in these areas….
Defenders of the Maine voucher program, including Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissenting opinion, claimed this was not a case of religious discrimination because the program did not exclude religiously affiliated schools as such, but rather only those that are "sectarian"— which the state Department of Education defined as an institution that, "in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith."
This distinction makes little sense…. and the court was right to reject it. The First Amendment clearly protects not merely religious belief and religious affiliation but also the "free exercise" of religion (emphasis added). The word "exercise" suggests that people must be free to act on their faith — including by trying to promote it…..
The flaws of the "status-use" distinction become clear if we consider what it would mean in other contexts. Thus, if the state had adopted a law that extends welfare benefits to adherents of all religions but denies it to those who might "use" some of the money to "promote" their faith, pretty much any court would strike down that as unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion….
Under Tuesday's decision, the state remains free to restrict vouchers to schools that fail to meet curricular standards that apply equally to both religious and secular schools — even if those standards go against the beliefs of some of them. For example, it might require recipient schools to teach students the theory of evolution despite the fact that some religious groups reject it….
Some argue that any public aid to religious schools violates a different part of the First Amendment — the establishment clause, which prohibits the state from creating an "established" church. But nondiscrimination between religious and secular institutions in no way privileges any particular faith, nor does it imply state endorsement of any denomination's religious beliefs or coercion to adhere to a certain faith….
In addition to vindicating an important constitutional principle, Carson v. Makin is a potential boon to poor and disadvantaged children. Social science research indicates that the private school choice is often especially valuable to poor and minority children, and that some religious schools — notably Catholic schools — are particularly adept at improving the performance of disadvantaged students. You don't have to endorse the religious doctrines of these schools (as an atheist, I myself do not) to recognize the valuable opportunities they offer.
The ruling also offers an opportunity to transcend today's increasingly divisive culture wars over education…. Both red and blue states increasingly seek to impose one-size-fits-all state-sponsored dogma through their public education systems. School choice that includes a wide range of religious and secular options allows dissenters to go their own way and creates valuable competition that parents can take advantage of.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you think public funding of "schools" that teach childish nonsense -- silly fairy tales in science classrooms, for example --is "better" (or likely to survive in the long term), you are on the wrong side of history and the dumb side of the aisle.
Carry on, clingers. While and so far as your betters permit, of course.
In other arenas, I happily launch into the inmorality of worshipping a creature that sits by while babies are raped to death
At the same time, I will defend freedom of religion to the death, as it is a detente to avoid a battle for one sect's national ascendancy.
I feel no joy, though, that large religion-like memeplexes are filling that role, having merely swapped "for The People" in for "for God", and "Give me power and money and I'll make your life better after you die", with the same but "after my 5 year plan".
Enjoy your support for the same old problem of the millenia.
Just like the GI Bill, the government is funding the individual to use the money at the institution of their choosing. Whether it is an institution that believes in the Spirit in the Sky, Zeus on Mt. Olympus or the Devil in Hell, should really not be a determination for the government.
In fact, carried to a logical extreme, suppose a person who received government assistance in the form of direct payments uses some portion of that money to donate to a religious institution or church. Under your logic, the donation would be prohibited.
The only real difference is the government can track the money in the voucher. But the underlying choice of the individual using that money is no different.
Someone receiving a direct payment with no conditions on how it is used (like the various stimulus payments during the pandemic) and receiving a payment for a stated purpose are vastly different. So, if you receive a grant to pay for your child's education and instead use it to buy booze, then the state should sanction you. Lots of government support comes with strings attached and varying enforcement.
It's a huge and real difference.
Is not the GI Bill specifically for college tuition?
Completely irrelevant; "suppose a person who received government assistance in the form of direct payments" does not appear to be about government payments with limitations on how it can be used. Vouchers for education are for education, so already some limitations are acceptable, and even buying a substandard education with it would be inappropriate.
(To fend off any obtuseness, I am NOT saying that a religious school has to be substandard. But the state has to judge whether a religiously based education in fact meets at least the minimal standard for education, and that puts the state in an awkward position with respect to the establishment clause.)
NPC Alert.
You are such a dipshit with your cut and paste comments.
Carry on dohtard.
This is a cut-and-paste blog, particularly since Blackman arrived, he and Eugene Volokh began to dominate the content, and some relatively reasonable Conspirators drifted toward saner shores.
"If you think public funding of "schools" that teach childish nonsense"
I agree. Schools that teach Marxist economic theory, or that there are more than two genders, should lose their funding.
"If you think public funding of "schools" that teach childish nonsense -- silly fairy tales in science classrooms, for example..."
I, too, think we should stop funding schools that teach that men can get pregnant.
Superstitious clingers -- people genuinely gullible enough to believe fairy tales are true, an outlook often coupled with multifaceted bigotry and other obsolete points -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
In an America that becomes less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse every day, I am content.
Every replacement make America greater.
Your assessment is short-sighted. Science and rational thinking have been around for hundreds of years but there is no indication that spiritual and religious thinking are on their way out.
Admittedly it may not be Christianity or the generally much more harmful Islam, but spiritual and religious thinking will not go away in general and freedom of Religion will likely still be relevant a thousand years from now.
This is where your hate has dissociated you from your principles, because you don’t seem to understand that this is not about a particular group you hate but about freedom of belief itself. And that WON BIG in court, it wasn’t “permitted”, or whatever dumb mental framing you need to engage when you cope.
Awfully considerate of the betters to permit the superstitious clingers a win on this one.
Didn’t Stalin express a silar certainty about being on the right side of history? How many divisions does the Pope and all that?
And didn’t Karl Popper make the main distinction between a genuinely scientific and a pseudoscientific outlook depend on exactly this issue? A genuinely scientific outlook doesn’t claim to know, at any rate with any certainty, how history will go and which side we will end up on. Only pseudoscientific outlooks make claims to having mastered human history.
I have never heard you say anything that showed you knew science at all. This is a post full of self-deception.
Is seems that most readers here are happy to elevate free exercise over the separation of church and state (if they are even willing to concede the latter is a constitutional principal, which they usually aren't).
If it's your preference to elevate free exercise, you got the result you wanted. The next goal is probably to further integrate religion into government, or to claim that religion has always been integrated into government, and it just needs to be restored or strengthened.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
I don’t see how this decision or the provision requiring school choice to include all certified schools violates that language. If the state is simply giving parents their share of state funds to spend on education as they see fit how is the government establishing anything?
The problem comes when deciding which schools to certify.
Next thing, I guess you will demand the government restrict the ability of welfare recipients to tithe.
I'm not demanding anything. Anyone who has unconditional lawful possession to money or assets can give it to anyone they like.
Mostly conservatives read this blog, and they're bound to love everything about this decision. For the few libertarians left who think that this was a good bargain to get school choice, the religious fascists will come for you first.
I’m not saying it’s a wonderful decision and I’m not saying it’s not. I’m saying I don’t see how it violates the language of the establishment clause. Your problem is with Maine, not the SC.
And worrying about the religious fascists is overdone. Given the current lean of the media and who is in control of the government, seems to me we’ve got to survive the progressive fascists after which the religious fascists might get a crack at us.
Fascist, racist, and communist are the three most hysterically overused words in our political discourse right now. All three have become completely disengaged from any rational meaning.
Exactly = Your problem is with Maine, not the SC.
I am unsure the libertarian position is one favoring school choice. I personally would prefer, to paraphrase the oft used phrase, a wall of separation between education and state.
Education, like any other service, cannot be provided more efficiently than via the market.
Contrary to most modern arguments claiming to favor the "privatization" of schools, I do not view the government contracting of private companies, the issuance of government vouchers for payment of education, or the direct subsidization of private institutions as free-market solutions.
Indeed, the only free-market solution is the abolition of all governmental ties to primary education.
How would such a transition come about?
Government funds could never be shut off immediately, dooming who knows how many classes, so during the transition would have to include both models existing at the same points in time.
One of them would be cost-free.
Just for the record, one is on the US Constitution, and the other is in a private letter from one individual to another.
So your first statement is wrong.
Your second sentence is supposition.
How is treating people unequally based on beliefs libertarian? You seem to be a leftist trying to claim libertarian for label reasons only.
Doujg always says 'probably' and betrays tht Hegelian nonsense he probably learned in his aromatherapy PhD
"The decision is an important victory for both the principle of nondiscrimination and parents and students seeking better educational opportunities."
Let's see how Maine reacts before we celebrate overly much.
Maine wouldn't be the first state to kill a voucher program entirely rather than let vouchers be used at religious schools.
Which is their prerogative. If they do so you wonder how their constituents will react.
Remember, remember, the eighth of November - - - - - -
Folks. Washington proscribed all Guy Fawkes celebrations because of its anti-Cathollicism , that is the reference.
If they go that route, it will still negate the "important victory for both the principle of nondiscrimination and parents and students seeking better educational opportunities." regardless of how the voters react after.
It would seem to be difficult to do so in this case, though, because this voucher program is not a general one, but is for school districts where they don't have public secondary schools.
Well, they would just need to have public secondary schools....
Or bus all the students in those districts to public schools in neighboring districts.
Defenders of the Maine voucher program, including Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissenting opinion, claimed this was not a case of religious discrimination because the program did not exclude religiously affiliated schools as such, but rather only those that are "sectarian"
I believe the gist of the Breyer dissent was the the government is barred from funding religious instruction.
Think Breyer is aware of the bazillions of grants, scholarships, and loans funded with taxes going to the Notre Dames and Baylors and their ilk?
If Notre Dame or Baylor teaches that creationism is true, or that magic beans beget stalks that lead to giants, or that evolution is a satanic hoax, or that John Blutarsky is a senator, or that angels are real, or that a talking raccoon is an expert marksman who guards the galaxy, or that anyone rose from the dead, that "school" should be stripped of accreditation by mainstream, reasoning, modern America and should be ineligible for public education funding, directly or indirectly.
People are entitled to teach nonsense, and be taught nonsense (subject to child welfare standards), but other people should not flatter that ignorance nor be expected to fund or respect it.
Yes, Notre Dame teaches that angels are real.
If that is true, Notre Dame is for gullible children of all ages.
Plenty of clingers there, I imagine. Indiana sticks and superstitious hicks sounds like a natural combo platter.
That's rich coming from someone who thinks men can get pregnant.
If the government is allowed to fund schools that teach nonsensical concepts like CRT, which are rooted in Marxism, they can fund some schools that strive to follow their religious tenets. But you do not respect the freedom of religion, so we won't go down without a fight.
Let him have his hate.
Marxism had killed far more people and deprived more of their freedom in the relatively short time of its existence compared to all religions combined.
FivebySixThree
June.22.2022 at 6:10 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"Let him have his hate.
Marxism had killed far more people and deprived more of their freedom in the relatively short time of its existence compared to all religions combined."
Very Well Stated !
NO, our founding documents (the organic laws) actually say the OPPOSITE
Breyer is argueing AGAINST himself
The NorthWest Ordinance also mentioned religion as a vital component to ensure our fledgling republic could flourish: Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Good article.
This is entirely logical. But let's put it in more deliberate terms with an analogy
Let's assume Congress issues a tax credit to people in general. Can Congress withhold the tax credit to priests, on the concept that if they issue money to priests, they would be funding religion?
According to some here, having Congress issue a payment to priests would constitute payment for religious employees. Thus, this would be illegal. So, while Congress could issue a tax refund for the general public, it would need to deliberately exclude those who were priests. Otherwise Congress would be "funding religion" and that would violate separation of church and state.
This is nonsensical, and uses the first amendment to deliberately discriminate against religion in general.
Likewise, if a state is funding private schools in general, it cannot deliberately exclude religious schools.
Yep. All kinds of other restrictions would supposedly be constitutional, like "tax breaks for donations to charity, unless they're religious charities" or "income tax breaks to people, unless they're Christian".
You are correct and virtually all other answers are wrong.
This is the great error of people like Macron, who when the burka ban was being discussed
Macron says enforcement of abaya ban in French school will be ‘uncompromising’
All that needed to be said is atheist or whatever you can't wear disguising full body clothing in which devices of killing can be hid.
But the complete moron instead said :
"“religious symbols of any kind have no place” in French schools under the country’s principle of “laïcité,”"
Macron,Merkel, May --- they had no children ,they just talk shit about other people's kids
But it does favor the promotion of religion over the promotion of being against religion.
How so?
Is there anything in this decision that prevents an avowed atheist school from being awarded vouchers?
In practice, there aren't avowed atheist schools and so this decision has the effect of requiring states to favor the promotion of religion.
But even if we had a near equal mix of religious and atheist schools, it seems wrong to me to require only one of 1) funding both of them equally or 2) funding neither of them equally. The state ought to have the option of either 1 or 2 (but not unequal treatment). Some states may choose 1, others like Maine might choose 2. But now, all must choose 1.
You are free to start one if you can get enough students.
And they are not funding the schools equally. They are funding the students and the parents who choose the school.
Why do so many of you miss the basics in your anti religious bigotry?
Nobody is forcing people to attend religious schools.
They're called public schools
Yes, under the same legal analogy as gun carry laws exist : religious instruction is promoted by our founding documents and atheism is not religious instruction. Several court decisions say this with no qualification
That’s not a function of the ruling it’s a function of like 80% of the country believing in a higher being. Someone posted a poll to that effect last week. There’s no bias for religion vs against religion in the ruling - that bias exists within the population of the country. A school founded on the premise that religion blows would be eligible for funds under this ruling if one were able to viably exist.
I disagree, Josh R. I see this decision as restoring equal footing between those who favor the promotion of religion over the promotion of being against religion in determining who receives a state benefit (this is a state decision, right? So the ME Legislature can change the law). I do not see a 'promotion' of anything, truthfully.
Viewed through the lens of parental authority and autonomy, I applaud this decision. Parents, not the State, are the primary determiners of what education their child will receive.
Indeed, may people disagree with the effect of Maine's law and how the Establishment Clause should be read. What bothers me is how the Court changed established doctrine when there is controversy on how the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses interact.
Under existing doctrine, if the Constitution permitted vouchers to religious schools, one state could choose to provide them while another could choose to forbid them (both states while providing vouchers to nonsectarian schools). This duality recognized the tension between the two religion clauses. But now, once a state is permitted to provide vouchers to religious schools, no state can forbid them if they provide vouchers to nonsectarian schools. Thus, the Free Exercise clause reigns supreme.
But discussing such tension presupposes that a voucher program poses an establishment clause issue in the first place.
Sure, if it is crystal clear there is no Establishment Clause issue at all (not surprisingly, I think it is not all clear). But, the Court did not make that argument. Instead it found
That's a far different sentiment than there is no Establishment Clause issue at all. It implies that a state cannot go beyond what the Constitution requires and ends the "play in the joints" doctrine.
AMEN
My view is that many now-standard conditions on funding, such as requiring schools to be coed and open to all religions, prohibiting discrimination in faculty, and various issues in dealing with gay and trans students (and faculty), among others, represent an establishment of religion when applied to churches.
My view is that churches shouldn’t have to comply with the states view on these things and moreover for the reasons explained in Hosanna Tabor religious schools are generally church activities, not ordinary commercial businesses, and get the additional protections churches and core church activities get.
I also think that (1) the state shouldn’t have to pay for religious schools that discriminate etc. and (2) most fundamentally, paying for schools conducted agreeably to the state on these points but not schools that don’t represents an establishment of religion. This is why I think the option of not paying for religious schools generally, not discriminating based on doctrine, should exist.
I think my concern is especially visible when it comes to faculty. As Hosanna-Tabor made clear, ordinary faculty in religious schools will often meet the definition of a minister. This means the state can’t have any say in their selection. If can’t apply discrimination laws. This means it can’t condition funding on compliance with such laws.
But I think it goes farther than that. Churches get to decide who their members are, not just who their ministers are. I think religious schools should be generally exempt from discrimination laws in their choice of students. Single sex is OK, in-religion only is OK. I think religious schools get to be exempt from a lot of state regulation.
And I think it’s not fair to the state, or the taxpayers, to force them to pay for something they might think is wrong and don’t want to pay for. Just as a conservative majority shouldn’t have to pay for abortions, I don’t think a liberal majority should have to pay for a single-sex school based on birth sex if they don’t want to. At the same time, I think funding churches open to all but not churches with limitations on their ministers or membership represents an establishment of religion. If one takes the view that a church school is first and foremost a church, applying such conditions to church schools would also represent an establishment.
So I think the way out of the dilemma, neither requiring taxpayers to fund activities they fundamentally disagree with nor let them only fund churches whose doctrines they agree with, is to let the state choose between either funding all religious schools with only very limited rules enforcible, or funding none. And that’s the option the Supreme Court has just foreclosed.
Reader Y - "I also think that (1) the state shouldn’t have to pay for religious schools that discriminate etc."
FWIW - schools that discriminate lose their tax exempt status since Bob Jones University case in 1982 (1983?). Schools also have to comply with Rev proc 75-50 in order to maintain tax exempt status.
The Supreme Court said that that compelling interest applies uniquely to racial discrimination. A recent opinion by Chief Justice Roberts had dicta reaffirming it.
And it doesn’t apply to everything that might be considered racial discrimination. For example, the British Supreme Court held some years ago that under English law, using Jewish parentage as a criterion to determine if an applicant was Jewish constituted race discrimination. Religion, it said, consists solely of beliefs and practice; legitimate religious status can be based only on that. Religions that regard religious status as based on parentage, like Judiasm, are being racist in character, not religious, when they use parentage to determine who is a member of the religion.
I think the Religion Clauses would create a problem with an American jurisdiction attempting the same thing.
How can being Jewish be racial when all races are repesented in Judaism. THe ethoipian Falash Jews are all BLACK (and I am referring to dominant color and not to fallacious DNA encoding of "jewishness" !!)
As Hosanna-Tabor made clear, ordinary faculty in religious schools will often meet the definition of a minister. This means the state can’t have any say in their selection. If can’t apply discrimination laws. This means it can’t condition funding on compliance with such laws.
Yes. There is a clear inconsistency there.
What if a school refused, as a matter of religion, to hire women as teachers? Should it be eligible for the vouchers?
Next straw man please. This one is illegal already.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing."
The school would likely also lose its tax exempt status under Bob Jones University v irs USSC (1982 or 1983)
But the court held that the compelling interest issue involved applies uniquely to race. Sex discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny only.
Doesn’t Hosanna-Tabor effectively override the government’s ability to bar any kind of discrimination for hiring of positions deemed “ministerial”? Including racial discrimination? My recollection was that it was a categorical rejection of such policing.
The Civil Rights Act, including Title IX which was passed in 1972, explicitly permits single-sex schools. It applies only to schools which voluntarily choose to be co-efucational.
In addition, the Supreme Court hadn’t held prior to Hosanna-Tabor that the ministerial privelege extends to teachers of secular subjects in a religious school if they incorporate religious elements into the curriculum. So the implications of the issue hadn’t been tested.
Hosanna-Tabor held that ministers, including the secular-subjects tescher at issue, are exempt from civil rights laws. Thst’s what the case was about. The teacher at issue had attempted to sue for discrimination. And the Supreme Court ruled that because she was a minister, she couldn’t, because First Amendment ministerial privelege protects church schools from civil rights laws when ministers are involved.
That’s exactly the issue the case was about.
but you ignore the result that all your opponents point to
as Clarence Thomas said in regard to HBCU , they were now considered unlawful and inferior BECAUSE they were all Black, something you would never say about an all-white school
If it did so it probably wouldn’t get accredited by the state (or would lose an already existing accreditation) so it wouldn’t be eligible for this program.
But, the school has a constitutional right to discriminate against women in the hiring of its minister-teachers (the CRA notwithstanding). So, wouldn't withholding accreditation be an unconstitutional condition as applied to such schools (Bob Jones distinguished because their discrimination wasn't in the hiring of minister-teachers)?
Right. Hosanna-Tabor has a much more expansive standard for what constitutes a minister than Bob Jones. It changed the landscape.
Hosanna-Tabor provides a roadmap to permit a religious school to have all its teachers classified as ministers if it wants. All they have to do is incorporate religious perspectives into the curriculum and do at least a small amount of religious instruction. Any religious school could easily structure things so that all its teachers meet the standard.
Okay, but there you doing dissing all those adherents to that faith as if they would accept everybody as a minister !!!!
I worked at a bank and saw that Clinton's CRA actually forced many minority bussiness to fail. Banks now saw that it was easier to lure even bad loans to Blacks so as to write them off rather than face huge CFPB fines for 'discrimination' and that forced minority lenders out of business.
3 comments about YOU
1)Why are you arguing fictional contrafactuals !!!
2) and isn't it crazy to add 'as a matter of religion' as if there could be no other reason
3) You start with your conclusion. Schools should get funding on equal basis and parents decide where to send kids.
Do the following facts even reach you
American public school teachers enroll their children at nearly twice that rate, 21.5%. In some cities, it is nearly four times the average rate
41% of representatives in the House and 46% of U.S. senators send or have sent at least one of their children to a private school
Folks already choose grades 13 and above and use tax dollars to fund those choices, FAFSA. And those choices are many times religious schools.
And those that make that choice have to be college ready. Which means they really need to choose better schools than the typical crappy public K-12 schools.