A little less than 2 weeks ago, it was decided in the First Circuit that Maine will continue their tuition reimbursement program. Initially started to support families in rural areas without a public high school, the program uses the residents of Maine’s tax dollars to send children to private schools. However, there is a big catch; parents may not receive tuition reimbursement if they choose a religious school. As one can imagine, such a program has been challenged before; the First Circuit upheld it back in 2004. Yet, the current lawsuit from three sets of parents who wanted to send their children to religious schools was spurred by two recent Supreme Court cases of similar notion. The first was Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), which ruled that a church-run preschool in Missouri could not be denied a state subsidy for resurfacing playgrounds at preschool and daycare facilities. The second was Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), which ruled that a Montana tax program could not exclude those who donate to religious private school scholarships. As a result, the three sets of parents claim that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools is illegal, and infringes on their free exercise of religion.
In response, U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron noted the difference between the Maine case and the other two lies within “what the school teaches through its curriculum and related activities, and how the material is presented.” He proceeds to mention that of the two Maine religious schools referenced in this case, one promotes the Bible as “final authority in all matters”, the other provides a “biblically-integrated education”, and both refuse to hire teachers who are homosexual. Using this the same line of thinking, it would make sense that the Supreme Court found withholding of resurfacing from Trinity Lutheran Church to be discrimination due to religious status, since the playground itself was not furthering a religious agenda. At the end of the day, the judges on the First Circuit did not find it proper for the people of Maine’s tax dollars to be used to send children to schools with missions that further specific religious agendas.
Considering the prior, I do find myself understanding the reasoning behind the judges on the First Circuit’s decision. Allowing religious schools to be part of Maine’s tuition reimbursement program would result in the state indirectly furthering religion. Moreover, I do not recognize this as direct hinderance on their freedom to exercise religion, due to the fact that families are not being prohibited from attending religious school, they are simply being told they will not receive aid to do so. However, it is a failing of neutrality of the law. While it appears to be a facially neutral law on the surface, in practice, it turns away parents of a certain financial status from religious schooling. Therefore, the exclusion of religious schools in Maine’s tuition reimbursement program directly prevents children (from lower-income homes) from receiving an education through the lens of their chosen religion. One father in the Maine lawsuit said, “It’s a financial burden… We live modest, conservative lives. I’d love to be driving the new vehicles like everybody else, but I choose to give my son a good education. I talk to a lot of parents that want to send their kids to do something different, and they just can’t swing it.” Additionally, it furthers non-religious ideals; aid only being provided to those who choose secular private schools serves as a deterrent from religious schooling (for certain families). Not to mention, while not unconstitutional, the initial goal of giving relief to families in rural areas is lost by directly excluding the religious community. For these reasons, I feel as though the state of Maine should either allow all private schools to qualify for the tuition reimbursement program, or enact a new system of reimbursement that does not only benefit secular schools in its place.
7 comments:
I agree that the state of Maine should allow the funding to go to all private schools. They are neither respecting or discriminating against an establishment of religion if they are simply giving money to low income families to pay for schooling. If the government allows tax deductions for charitable donations and I donate money to a particular church; that does not mean that the government is endorsing the church which I used my free will to give my money to. If the courts rule that it is not unconstitutional to only give money to secular schools then I would like to hear the argument for why the secular religion is superior or supported by the government and not other religions as well.
I am pretty torn on my stance on this case. However, ultimately I agree that Maine should allow reimbursement for private secular and sectarian schools. The program was designed to help low-income families attend private schools in order to receive a better education. Therefore, not allowing sectarian schools to be a part of this plan hinders children from receiving the education their families want due to lack of funds. Although it could be argued that funding religious schools is an advancement of religion, I think it is more neutral towards religion than an advancement. These children are going to practice religion regardless, they just may not be able to attend religious schools because their families cannot afford it, which I do not think is right. Additionally, this would not be an advancement of one particular religion if the state of Maine allowed for reimbursement of all types of private religious schools.
I do also believe that both private schools of religious affiliation and public schools should be funded in this program. This is primarily on the basis that not allowing religious schools as an option to these recipients, can ultimately be viewed as discriminating against religion. By that knowledge, this exclusion of private religious schools would not be neutral. In addition, I think that the nature of this scholarship serves a secular purpose to help students receive education, and they have the choice if they want to go to a religious private school or public school with the funding that they may receive.
I agree with the author, where it may seem like a neutral policy that does not aid or establish the advancement of religion. However, I think that it has greater consequences. While is is assuring that no religion gets aid from the state, it is also directly discriminating against those who want a private education as well. Not every person who attends a religious school is going there for their religion. In most cases, they are just going there to get a better education. By restricting the aid, it is restriction education as well. It is also discrimination against religions as well.
I think that both public schools, private schools, and private religiously associated schools. I can understand why some would not want religious schools to be funded in this program because of there being direct aid to religion through this program. With that being said, I do think that if they are not included in the program then it is not facially neutral. They would place a financial burden on families who choose to send their children to private religious schools.
I agree with the author in that both public schools and religious private schools should be funded by the state of Maine. Prohibiting the option of religious private school for retrieval of funds makes this restriction neither facially neutral or neutral in practice, as the state of Maine is discriminating against religion, and placing preferential treatment over non religion, as well as public school education. I also think that this restriction places a substantial burden on those affected. Restricting aid for a person who desires to attend religious private school not only hinders their ability to learn in religious setting and environment at the hand of their faith, but it restricts their ability to receive the education they want, an aspect of life which is paramount and impactful.
I made this comment in our last class but just reiterating once again how I feel about this issue. I do not think the Establishment Clause was intended to make sure there is no relationship or interaction between the state and religion at all. If this was true, people wouldn't swear before God in a court of law, our money wouldn't say "in God we trust", official legislative sessions wouldn't begin in prayer, etc. More than anything, I think the exclusion of private religious schools in this case is more hostile to religion than anything else. It is one thing to say that there cannot be excessive entanglement between the state and religious institutions; however, in this case, it just seems like the state is ignoring the need to financially support parents who choose alternate educational options for their students to appear like it does not support religion. Again, I think it is slightly far-fetched to expect a reasonable observer to see tuition assistance as a direct aid to the religious mission of a religious institution.
Post a Comment