For this week‘s supreme court case regarding religion and constitutional law, I have decided to tackle a case in Montana where there was much controversy over the establishment of religion clause in the first amendment. The article I read which covered this case is called “Protecting Students’ Right to Freedom of Religion” by Amy Cannata, the ACLU Montana Coordinator. The case is centered around a state funded scholarship program given out to students for higher education funded by taxpayer dollars from Montana. The problem which arose from this scholarship program was that none of the money given out by the state would go to any student in a private religious school. Many families needed this scholarship money to help keep their children in the private schools, but these families were left out of the funding. One mother, Kendra Espinoza, along with the help of other families in the area, decided to file a lawsuit in the local state court challenging whether the State’s decision was in violation of the first amendment in the constitution which protects the freedom of religion and exemption from religion based unequal treatment.
The article stated that the case started in 2015 when the Montana government decided to set up a funding program where businesses around the state would donate to a scholarship program and in return get tax credit. The Montana Department of revenue created a list of rules which came attached with the new funding. The first rule on the list stated that scholarship recipients can not use their scholarships at private schools. In this rule, there was an exclusion of religious schools in the state because the majority of these schools are institutions which you must pay to be enrolled in. Furthermore, this rule was incredibly problematic for Kendra Espinoza, as she had her children enrolled in Stillwater Christian school but was struggling to make ends meet and was struggling just to keep her children in this school. Espinoza felt that this rule was in and of itself unconstitutional and challenged the Montana Department of revenue with this assertion. The author of the article followed in suit with Espinoza by stating “we want to partner with educators and make sure that students' rights to religious freedom are protected and upheld”.
The case was taken to the supreme court, and the Montana Department of revenue had to figure out a defense. The Montana Department of revenue argued that what this rule was made to do was to help out students going to public schools who live in homes which are struggling to put meals on the table and pencils in the backpacks of their children. The Montana Department of revenue furthermore stated that giving state funding to students in religious schools would be not coinciding with the first amendment as it would constitute establishment of religion which is contrary to the first amendment.
This decision was incredibly important because if the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for funding to be given to students in religious schools then it would open up a window for many other students in religious schools around the state to claim their funding. Furthermore, if the court resides with Espinoza, then a precedent is set for funding throughout the country to be available for students in religious schools. This case was especially interesting when taken in hand with the establishment clause. The establishment clause was created in order to prevent the government from imposing religion on the populace, and in this case, it seems that Espinoza is asking for funding from the government for her children’s religious mission.
My personal opinion on the case would coincide with Espinoza’s argument, as I believe that withholding funding from her because of her religious beliefs is not in accordance with the constitution and the first amendment. An important point for me in coming to this conclusion resided in the ACLU article which stated that the first amendment was supposed to “protect religious observers against unequal treatment”. If funding was not given to Espinoza in this situation, it is her that would be faced with unequal treatment because of her religion.
Post by Chris L.
5 comments:
I agree with your argument about how important this case was in reinforcing the establishment clause. However, I would have to disagree with your stance on this case. Firstly, it was Kendra Espinoza’s decision to enroll her children in a private school in general, whether it had a religious affiliation or not, and every other parents decision as well. Therefore, parents who enroll their children in religious private schools in particular should not receive funding from taxpayers, unless it is a public school concentrated in religion, because it was their decision to do so. It’s important to note that they have alternative options, such as sending their children to public school.
I agree with your conclusion for the proper decision in this case. However, I came to my reasoning differently than you. I see the fact that this funding is not able to apply to private school students as not facially neutral, rather biased against them. A pupil studying is a pupil studying, and you shouldn't be able to preclude one from financial support by the denomination of their educational institute.
I appreciate your conclusion in this case, but I have to agree with Lizzy and I believe that the exclusion of private schools is not a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I agree with Lizzy that it is a conscious and voluntary decision to enroll children in private school and public schools are always alternative options. Additionally, the rule is that private schools are ineligible, not specifically religious private schools; therefore, it is not an attack on religion specifically. Furthermore, businesses and taxpayers across the state are funding the scholarships, so if private schools were eligible, it would be providing state money to religious establishments and certain businesses might be more or less inclined to contribute if they knew their money was going towards students who might or might not be of the same religion.
I think that there are nuances of this that lead me to agree with what Ariel and Lizzy said by saying that if there were taxpayer dollars that were going into this scholarship fund, I could understand why Espinoza would view this as a violation of her first amendment rights. If all taxpayers are putting money in, no one should be precluded from receiving money based on their religious affiliation or the religious affiliation of their school. However, from what I understand the funding is coming from local businesses and going to the state actor (what I'm assuming, in this case, is a school board) and then to students, state actors providing funding to parochial schools is generally frowned upon because it can lead to excessive entanglement of church/state affairs and covering tuition costs is an example of directly providing money to parochial schools. In addition, if strictly religious schools were excluded, I could see the case being made for a constitutional violation but all private schools, including secular ones are not eligible to receive funding.
I agree that taxpayers's dollars going to a family whose child is enrolled in a religious private school is ultimately an establishment of religion. Although Espinoza's particular case may not seem necessarily "fair", she did have the choice to put her child in a private school. This is obviously not a decision that can be forced. Taxpayers who have children that go to public schools in the area cannot be expected to have their money go towards someone in a school that is not funded by the state. I would ultimately have to agree with the Montana Department of Revenue, as well as Lizzy and Ariel on this case.
Post a Comment