Does the Constitution Allow Discrimination Against Religious Choices? – ACLJ Supports Request for Supreme Court Review of School Choice Case | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

The Constitution and Discrimination of Religious Choices

By Walter M. Weber1555594361458

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting school choice. The ACLJ amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant review in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. At issue is the constitutionality of including – or excluding – religious schools from the list of beneficiaries of a state scholarship tax credit program.

To further parental choice in education, Montana decided to offer a state income tax credit to donors who support private scholarship funds. The idea is that taxpayers get an incentive to support the scholarships, which in turn help parents of limited means send their children to the school of their choice.

After Montana adopted the tax credit program, the state tax agency issued a rule that disqualified any scholarship fund that included religious schools as beneficiaries. That is, a state agency decided that parents could use scholarships to choose secular private schools, but not religious private schools. Various parents who wanted to send their children to religious schools brought suit in state court, challenging the disqualification of such schools. A state trial court agreed with the parents and invalidated the rule. But the Montana Supreme Court reversed. That court held that, under the Montana Constitution, the state was required to discriminate against religious schools.

The parents then filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the state’s discrimination against religious schools violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The ACLJ supports the parents. As we argue in our amicus brief:

In the distribution of religion-neutral benefits (here, tax credits for donations to private scholarship funds), the government may not disfavor otherwise eligible private entities solely on the basis of their religious identity or activities.

A contrary ruling would authorize gratuitous hostility against those who choose religious entities for donations, education, services, etc. A state or federal government could disallow deductions for charitable contributions only to religious charities. Use of public parks could be free except for church events. Tours of museums and state capitols could be free for all student groups except those from religious schools. A government transportation agency could allow free (and thus subsidized) use of express lanes by HOV vehicles except for buses carrying children to or from religious schools.

As we note in our brief, the growth of government makes it especially important not to tolerate anti-religious discrimination. “The more benefits and services the state undertakes to pay, deliver, control, or manage, the more important it becomes to resist discriminatory disqualifications.” Our brief urges the Supreme Court to grant review and overturn the state supreme court ruling.

The right of parents to select the school that best suits their children is more crucial now than ever. Public schools have recurrently been sources of controversy – over prayer in the classroom, education about evolution versus creation, teaching about (or ignoring) religion, controversial reading assignments, graphic or ideological sex education, offering birth control or abortion referrals, pro- versus anti-American perspectives in history and economics, and most recently bathroom disputes.

Parents should not be forced to accept a one-size-fits-all education dictated by the local school board. Programs like that in Montana empower parents to pursue the education that they regard as best for their children. We hope the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review the Espinoza case and to overturn the rule of religious hostility imposed by the Montana Supreme Court.

Debunking the Buddhist-Based Mindfulness Fallacy in Schools

By Christina Stierhoff1572641386830

In our previous posts, we alerted you to the danger of mindfulness in schools , discussed the inherent Buddhist nature of mindfulness, and revealed the deception involved in getting these programs into schools. We thank you for rising to the challenge and partnering with us to eliminate this...

read more

Small White Cross Targeted in The Villages

By Michelle Terry1571414596691

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) represents Wayne and Bonnie Anderson, who live in The Villages, Florida. In their yard, the Andersons have placed a small, white cross as an expression of their religious speech and beliefs, and a colorful parrot as a decorative ornament. The cross and...

read more

Critical Case Involves Discrimination of Christian Schools

By Laura Hernandez1570822502017

Last week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Carson v. Makin , a case challenging the State of Maine’s discrimination against Christian schools. In Maine, there are not enough public secondary schools, especially...

read more

Protecting Teachers from Forced Buddhist-Based Mindfulness

By Abigail A. Southerland1568928568700

For months, the ACLJ has worked to defend the rights of students in public schools across the country who are being subjected to classroom-led mindfulness and meditation sessions – a core religious practice of Buddhism and other eastern religions. The ACLJ has been successful in representing...

read more