The State Legislature in Montana enacted a law in 2015 that
included something called the “Tax Credit for Qualified Education Contributions”.
This allows taxpayers to contribute to organizations that grant “scholarships”
for students attending private schools. The program both encouraged school
choice by making private schools more affordable and allowed people to spend
their own money how they wanted. The legal issue arose because most of the
private schools in Montana are religious schools, so it raised the issue of the
use of public funding for religious schools. Kendra Espinoza and other
low-income mothers applied for scholarships in order to keep their children
placed in the Stillwater Christian School in Kalispell, Montana. Soon after
this scholarship program started, the Montana Department of Revenue issued a
rule, known as “Rule 1” that stated that no scholarships could be used at religious
schools because it could be seen as either indirect or direct public aid
towards certain religious programs. In reaction to this rule, Espinoza and
others argued that this law that Montana enacted violated their First Amendment
rights and their free exercise of religion under both the Montana and U.S.
Constitutions. They then filed a lawsuit stating that Rule 1 was
unconstitutional. A lower court decided that this program was constitutional
without Rule 1, but the Department of Revenue stated that the program is
unconstitutional without Rule 1. Eventually the Montana Supreme Court agreed
with the Department of Revenue and reversed the lower court’s rulings.
On December 12, 2018, the Montana Supreme
Court reversed a District Court that ruled in favor of petitioner Espinoza
because the court believed that this program violated Article X, Section 6 of
the Montana Constitution. The constitution states as follows “The legislature, counties, cities,
towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or
indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant
of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church,
school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific
institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or
denomination”.
The question that stems from this case is whether a state law
which allows for educational funding but not for religious schools violates the
Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the federal
Constitution?
I believe that allowing the funding for private schools, including
the religious based ones, discriminates against religious minorities who
frequently cannot attend religious private schools because of differing
religious beliefs. They also usually are unable to afford non religiously
affiliated private schools, which often are more expensive. If this program is
giving indirect or direct aid and funds to religious schools, there is no clear
separation between church and state because the government is helping support
private schools within the state of Montana, which are largely religious. As
then U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in his Locke v.
Davey dissent, one way to avoid discrimination in violation of the free
exercise clause is not to provide any public funding for private education,
religious or not. In addition to this, there could be more of a presence of a
certain religious sect in Montana. Therefore, there could be religious bias and
preference of certain religions over others.
As the president and CEO of Americans United, a lobbyist group that
opposes this program, Rachel Laser said, “Montana taxpayers should never be
forced to fund religious education – that’s a fundamental violation of
religious freedom. The Montana Supreme Court’s decision protects both
church-state separation and public education. It’s a double win”.
This case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, is scheduled
for the Supreme Court’s October 2019-2020 term and I am curious to see whether
the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Montana Department of Revenue and
if we will be able to have true separation between church and state.
8 comments:
Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution states as follows “The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination”.
This makes it clear that no public taxpayers aide can be directed for any aide regarding any type of religious institution, as the taxpayer is from the public sector. Even if people are unable to afford their preferred religious school or private school, there is always the option of free public schooling. The Act was formed with good intentions, as it would allow a taxpayer to help children attend their desired school choice, but unfortunately it already violates a law established in the Montana Constitution.
Private school in general is the emphasis for the Act, so with that in mind it does not violate any general Private school from getting aide from taxpayers for scholarships, there just cannot be any institution associated with any church, sect, or denomination.
I agree completely with the author in this case study. The establishment clause in the first amendment clearly states that there shall be no state funds ever utilized for any form of religious support. In this case, the violation is not only one that harms nondenominational students, but also all religious students who are not a part of a christian belief system. According to the Council for American Private Education, over 65% of private schools across the US are christian, and Montana is n exception. Overall, christian students wishing to attend private school would benefit much greater than any other religion, which inherently violates the establishment clause.
This was a very interesting case and I have mixed feelings about it. I think that it is definitely unconstitutional to only provide scholarships for religious private schools. It explicitly contradicts Montana's law on providing direct or indirect funds to religious establishments. Because of this, I think that they should not provide this aid. However, if that specific law were not in place, I think another viable solution would be to provide the opportunity for these scholarships to all children attending private schools. This would make it more neutral, so it would not be favoring religious private schools over secular ones.
If Montana's state law has been upheld as Constitutional, then there is no question that this program is violating that and is therefore unconstitutional. For a sectarian institution to be accepting public funds blurs any separation between church and state. I agree with Stef that private non-religious schools should be allowed to receive funds, but when a sectarian institution receive public funds, it can be seen as the government's endorsement of religious beliefs that, as Nathan pointed out, is usually only for majority religions. In order to protect free-exercise and steer clear of establishment, this program should not use any tax-payer or public funds to devote to sectarian institutions.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is an interesting case because it revisits this concept of government’s “direct vs. indirect aid” of religion. On the topic of aid, I disagree with Alexandra in stating that allowing the funding of this program is unconstitutional. I back my opinion up with the precedent set in Everson v. Board of Education. The opinion ruled that a New Jersey statue reimbursing Catholic students for transportation to school through public funds was constitutional. Additionally, with regards to “Rule 1” I agree with the Department of Revenues decision that without Rule 1 the program is not neutral and favors non-religion over religion.
I believe this program is neutral and therefore constitutional. Although it was stated that most private schools in Montana are religious, this program does not give preference to religious or non-religious private schools. Due to the wording in this brief I am not sure if taxpayers were "forced" or "allowed" to contribute to this program of granting scholarships to private schools. In either case, due to the neutrality of the program, I do not think this is a violation of the First Amendment.
I agree with the author in this case. I do not think students should be given scholarships if they attend Catholic or private school. Giving money for religious schools is unconstitutional and it does not show any separation between church and state. If parents choose to send their children to private schools, that is their decision and they should be able to pay for it. they can easily send their kids to a free, public school and not have to worry about this. I think this is the same as the Everson v. Board of Education case, saying that children going to Catholic schools should not be reimbursed for their transportation. No one is being forced to attend these private schools, so why should they be given money to reimburse this decision.
Something that is important to note here is that there is no coercion involved in this instance, and this statute favors neither religion nor non-religion (it is only facially neutral), since it is at the taypayers' discretion whether or not their funding will support private schooling (which does not have to be for religious private schools). The key issue here is that taxpayers were given a tax credit for donating to these private schools, which clearly incentivizes supporting these private institutions, most of which are religious. Due to the fact that there is an incentive behind giving these donations, the statute is only facially neutral, and partial in practice. Therefore, the establishment clause is violated.
Post a Comment