A.H v. French

Many high school students around the country participate in dual enrollment college programs to prepare for life after high school as they proceed on their journey of higher education. In the State of Vermont, the dual enrollment program was open to all students who attended a public high school, secular private high school, or were homeschooled to attend college classes at the public expense, but restricted any student who went to a private religious school from taking part in the program to get ahead on their college course work. The purpose of this program was to, "promote opportunities for Vermont students to achieve postsecondary readiness through high-quality educational experiences that acknowledge individual goals, learning styles, and abilities". The provision of the law required that each student must prove that their high school tuition is publicly funded to be eligible for the program. The reason for the restriction comes from the Vermont Constitution that states no funding may go to any form of religious education which was interpreted by the the town tuition program to bar students who went to religious high schools from accessing public funds of the dual enrollment program. The Alliance Defending freedom filed a lawsuit against the State of Vermont in January of 2019. In May of 2019, the Department of Justice filed interest the case and deemed it wrong to discriminate against religious high school students. The case was then brought to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and they stopped the program from excluding from private religious high school students as the case moved forward. This case has not been heard by the Supreme Court but there are precedents that closely identify with the questions in this case.

    The constitutional issue that this law presents is whether or not the restriction of private religious high school students from the Vermont dual enrollment program breaches the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The free exercise clause, "protects religious observers against unequal treatment’ and against ‘laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status". In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Missouri Constitution that restricted any organization owned by a church or religious organization from receiving funding to to resurface a playground. In addition, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court reversed a Montana State Supreme Court ruling that prohibited scholarship money from going to students who attend private or religious schools. The basis of the Supreme Court argument was that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when determining the allocation of public benefits. Religious individuals must be treated equally and be protected from discriminatory treatment. The question that this case brings up is whether or not the state can restrict students from public funds based on a religious affiliation? Does practicing religion actually incur a cost on the petitioners' free exercise in this circumstance to attend college courses?

    I agree with the ruling of the 2nd Circuit because this dual enrollment program clearly inhibits the free exercise of religious beliefs on the students who attend religious schools. The publicly funded dollars in this case are going towards the student themselves to advance their opportunity at a state university, not the religious school itself. This program is to benefit individual students and should not be allowed to exclude any individual on the basis of religious status. I do not believe that this provision of the dual enrollment program possesses neutrality in any sense as those who wish to exercise their religious education are directly discriminated against. This law provides the the families with a choice to either practice their religious beliefs or experience a negative economic impact and miss out on a general public benefit. Religious individuals and organizations are permitted to benefit from general governmental services. The law must not advance or inhibit religion in its effect which is clearly in contradiction with the premise of the dual enrollment program. This is a pure example of the government imposing unequal treatment on those practicing religion which the Constitution is clearly set out to protect. One of the attorneys on the case said, “As the U.S. Supreme Court held just the year before last, a state cannot discriminate against students by excluding them from generally available public benefits simply because they attend a religious school.” This case has precedence in the Supreme Court which has ruled multiple times that state funding cannot be exempt on the basis of religion which this program does.