This particular case is complicated when keeping in mind the new ideological direction of the predominately conservative Supreme Court. In a 2022 decision, the Justices ruled in Carson v. Makin that "when the government provides a benefit, like parent-directed educational funding, it cannot exclude families just because they chose to use that benefit for religious education." This relatively new decision issued by the Court is the main line of reasoning used by the plaintiffs in this case. However, it is essential to consider the prior historical precedents issued by the Court that have been the law of the land for decades. One example that comes to mind immediately is the Zorach case. In this particular Supreme Court case, a New York City policy allowing students to be excused from the classroom early for religious instruction per parental consent was challenged on whether it promoted the establishment of religion. The appellants of the case argued that this particular policy undermined the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in that the State was promoting a group of religions by allowing children to be excused from secular educational duties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York City public schools in that allowing religious instruction in the lives of students was permissible as long as public taxes were not used to support such practice. Since the students were not engaging in religious activity within the public school classrooms, there was no violation of the Establishment Clause per the majority of the Court. Justice Douglas - in his opinion - stated that it was different than the McCollum case in that publicly funded resources were not being used. I believe that these two historical precedents provide ample evidence for the correct outcome from the judiciary in this charter school case.
If I were a judge hearing the facts of this case, I would rule in favor of the State of California and assert that there is no evidence of religious discrimination in this particular case. As per the Establishment Clause, "Congress [and the State] shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (U.S. Constitution). For Congress or the States to respect the establishment of religion, it would require them to authorize the use of tax-payer funds for religious organizations. This would include allowing religious indoctrination to be allowed within the publicly funded educational system of the state. The facts of the case are quite clear: the charter school program is funded using public tax revenue. The resources collected from the general public cannot be used for the promotion of one, some, or any religious faith. The educational system has long been a secular institution and steers clear of religious teachings. It is within the duty of the federal or state governments to ensure a neutrality of religious practices in society. The facts of this case do not insinuate any restrictions on religious freedom. These families and students can practice their religious views within their respective organizations. The State of California is in no way restricting the families' right to worship. The State is simply asserting that public funds cannot be used for the expansion of religious indoctrination. Therefore, the Courts should side with the State of California.
Case Link for Blog Post: https://firstliberty.org/cases/california-charter-schools/#simple2
*Link to Official Complaint: https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CA-Charters-Complaint_Redacted.pdf
*Also utilized Munioz Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court
Nice post; I think you nicely put old and new precedents in conversation. I agree with your decision and your reasoning that establishment includes the use of taxpayer funds for the promotion of religious purpose, so the families should not receive funds. I disagree, however, that religious discrimination is not present here. I think the law does discriminate against religious instruction, but it does not place a burden on the families that prevents them from practicing or sharing their religion with their children.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author. I think he provided a compelling argument for the state of California. Considering the historical precedents mentioned such as the Zorach case and the recent Carson v. Makin decision, it is clear that the courts believe that public funds should not endorse religious instruction. In upholding the Establishment Clause, the State must maintain a secular educational system. This policy does not impede the families' freedom to practice their religion privately but ensures a "wall of separation" between tax money and religious instruction. Overall, I agree that the Courts should support the State of California in this case.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree with Sarah's comment, as I do not believe that there was any religious discrimination present. While the taxpayer money is not going directly to religious instruction, as may indirectly fund the instruction. So, while the funds are not allowed to be used for religious instruction, it does not stop the family from practicing and educating their children in a religious sense in their own time and money. This way I feel neutrality is best used, as the money should be used for secular education, as it is public funding. I see your point, and I think it is important to understand the argument from both sides, but in my opinion I do not think there is any discrimination regarding the constitutionality of not allowing the funds to be used for religious education.
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance on the lawsuit against the State of California regarding religious discrimination in publicly funded charter schools. The challenge revolves around the state policy limiting public funds for religious instruction. In line with historical precedents I agree that the state is not infringing on religious freedom. Public funds should not endorse specific religious teachings within the educational system. The State of California's position aligns with the need for religious neutrality, and I would also rule in favor of the state, asserting no evidence of religious discrimination.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the assessment that the educational policy imposed by the State of California is not a discriminatory violation of the families' First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. While the plaintiffs argue that they are being discriminated against due to their preference for religious instruction, it's essential to recognize the broader context and legal principles at play as you mentioned.
Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Carson v. Makin, emphasize that government benefits, including educational funding, should not exclude families based on their choice of religious education. However, historical precedents like the Zorach case demonstrate that public funds cannot be used to support religious instruction directly. In the case of California's charter school policy, the restriction on using state funds for religious instruction aligns with the principle of government neutrality in religious matters, as outlined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The state is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion but rather ensuring that public funds are not used to promote any specific religious beliefs. Families are free to practice their religious beliefs outside of the school setting, without interference from the state.
Overall, I think that although the plaintiffs may feel that their rights are being infringed upon, the state's policy is consistent with constitutional principles and aims to maintain a secular educational environment. Great post - very relevant to our discussions!