The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the Conservative Court to expand religious freedom and bring more religion into public life, a trend fueled by the addition of three of former President Donald Trump’s nominees.
“Maine’s ‘non-sectarian’ demand for his otherwise publicly available tuition payments violates the free First Clause exercise clause,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of the majority. “Regardless of how the benefits and limitations are described, the program works to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools based on their religious practices.”
Roberts was joined by Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett. The three liberal judges disagreed.
This is a loss for critics who say the decision will further erode church-state divisions. Although only one other state, Vermont, has a similar program, the court ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar programs.
Steve Vladek, an analyst at CNN’s Supreme Court and a professor at the University of Texas Law School, said “today’s decision puts states in a difficult position” if they decide to provide programs to support schooling.
“Although formulated as a decision to choose a school, it is difficult to see how this will not have consequences for a far wider range of state aid programs – putting the government in an awkward position to choose between direct funding for religious activity or non-provision. funding in general, “said Vladek.
Writing disagreement, joined by Judge Elena Kagan and partly Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Stephen Brier said the court “has never accepted what the Court holds today, namely that the state should (cannot) use state funds to payment for religious education as part of a training program designed to ensure the provision of free public school education throughout the country. ”
In response to Breyer’s emphasis on “government neutrality,” Roberts wrote that “there is nothing neutral about the Maine program.”
“The state,” he said, “pays for the tuition of some students in private schools – as long as they are not religious.”
“This is discrimination against religion,” Roberts said.
“The administration of this benefit by Maine is subject to the principles of free exercise governing any such program of public benefit – including the prohibition of denial of compensation based on the recipient’s religious practices,” he added.
Sotomayor, in his disagreement, put Tuesday’s ruling in line with other recent court moves to expand religious freedom, while accusing the court of dismantling “the wall of division between church and state that the Freemasons struggled to build.”
The majority, she wrote, did so by “embracing arguments from previous separate writings and ignoring decades of precedents that gave governments the flexibility to manage tensions between religious clauses.”
As a result, in just a few years, the Court has changed constitutional doctrine, moving from a rule that allows states to refuse to fund religious organizations to a rule that requires states in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayers’ dollars, Sotomayor said. . .
This story has been broken and will be updated.
Add Comment