In the ongoing case of Crosspoint v. Makin, the state of Maine finds itself at the center of a constitutional dispute that highlights the tension between religious liberty and anti discrimination principles. The case raises the question of when the government can place conditions on public funding for religious institutions, and whether religious schools can receive taxpayer money while maintaining discriminatory policies.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is the central constitutional issue presented in this case. Crosspoint argues that being forced to comply with antidiscrimination provisions substantially burdens their religious exercise. They believe that the First Amendment protects their right to operate according to their religious beliefs, even when receiving public funds. However, Maine has a compelling state interest in ensuring that publicly funded programs do not engage in discriminatory practices, and that schools voluntarily participating in state programs must follow the same rules as other recipients.
There are a few Supreme Court precedents relating to Free Exercise that are relevant to this case. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court establishes that laws substantially burdening religious practice must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Sherbert, the Court ruled that a Seventh-day Adventist could not be denied unemployment benefits for refusing to work on Saturday, her Sabbath. In Crosspoint, the school could argue that, like Ms. Sherbert, it faces a choice between following religious convictions and receiving government benefits. However, Maine could counter this argument by stating that unlike in Sherbert, where the state had no compelling interest in forcing someone to work on their Sabbath, the state does have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in publicly funded education.
Perhaps the most directly relevant precedent to the Crosspoint case is Bob Jones University v. United States (1983). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could revoke the tax-exempt status of a religious university that enforces racially discriminatory policies based on religious beliefs. The Court held that the government had a “fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,” which outweighed the burden on the university’s right to Free Exercise. For Crosspoint v. Makin, this precedent strongly supports Maine’s position that its interest in preventing discrimination can justify refusing funding, even if these conditions affect Crosspoint’s religious practices.
I believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Makin. Bob Jones University provides the strongest precedent to support this outcome. The Supreme Court has already accepted that the government can refuse to subsidize discrimination, even when that discrimination is motivated by sincere religious beliefs. Although Crosspoint’s strongest argument can come from Sherbert, there is a strong difference in reasoning that would weaken that argument. Unlike in Sherbert, where the state had no compelling interest to deny benefits, Maine does have a compelling interest to prevent discrimination in education.
Maine isn’t forcing Crosspoint to change its religious beliefs or practices, it’s simply stating that if the school wants public funding, it must comply with public nondiscrimination requirements. This is a neutral rule, and a conditional benefit, not a punishment for religious exercise. The school is free to maintain its discriminatory policies if it wishes to, it just cannot expect taxpayers to subsidize those policies. It is possible for Maine to keep the balance between religious free exercise and state interests by allowing religious schools to participate in the tuition program as long as they are willing to follow the same laws that other schools must follow, so that the state can ensure that no public funds are going towards discriminatory practices.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/crosspoint-v-makin
https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/crosspoint-church-v-makin/
11 comments:
I fully agree with Makin’s position. Recognizing a compelling state interest in ensuring that educational facilities maintain a non-discriminatory environment is essential. This is crucial not only for fostering inclusivity but also for upholding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs. Even if it is a spiritual school a person may want to attend, anti-discrimination law should still affect their admissions processes.
I agree that there is a compelling state interest to combat antidiscrimitory practices because public funds that impact every citizen should be directed to those with discriminatory practices. Further, I think that there is an indirect burden on religion in this case, and the court is not saying that they cannot practice their religion. Therefore, there is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in my opinion.
This is a hard case and relates a lot to what we have recently discussed in class. On the one had, I see the argument that there may be a compelling state interest to prevent discrimination, and so those may argue that this is enough of a justification to result in an indirect burden/restriction on religious practice through the denial of public funding.
On the other hand, some may argue that requiring religious schools to comply with anti-discrimination laws in exchange for public funding undermines their First Amendment rights. These people may argue that Religious institutions should be allowed to maintain their beliefs and practices without government interference, especially when it comes to admissions policies, and that the government should not impose conditions that force religious organizations to violate their fundamental principles in order to access public benefits.
Overall, I would have to argue that the former perspective is more applicable here. I agree with the argument that Maine has a strong interest in preventing discrimination in publicly funded education. To me, It's crucial that taxpayer money isn't used to support schools with discriminatory policies, even if those policies are based on religious beliefs (but this is just a belief issue). More important to note is that Maine isn’t forcing Crosspoint to change its religious practices - it’s just asking that they follow the same rules as any other school IF they want PUBLIC funding. They are still able to go about with their discrimination, but not with the use of tax payer dollars. This seems like a fair way to balance religious freedom with the state’s interest in ensuring equality.
I agree that it is crucial to uphold the standard of preventing discrimination, as this is a compelling state interest. Although the idea is based on religious beliefs, it is a private school and they are not guaranteed funding, especially if their policies are discriminatory. Therefore, their rights are not being infringed, as they are simply being asked to meet the same requirements as other schools that seek funding.
I agree that Maine has a compelling state interest in ensuring that public funds are not used to support discriminatory practices. Public funding must be directed toward institutions that uphold an inclusive environment and equitable standards. While Crosspoint may face restrictions on receiving state funds, this does not directly burden the practice of its religion. The court is not prohibiting the free exercise of its religion or from operating according to its beliefs. I do not see a violation of the Free Exercise clause in this situation.
I also strongly agree that Maine has a compelling interest in enforcing public policy. Maine is providing a service to help students to attend private schools financially. Maine is simply supporting schools that maintain a non-discriminatory environment. As you said this is similar to the Bob Jones University Case, where the government financially supported tax-exempt institutions. I would also add that in both instances, the financial assistance isn't a right for these religious institutions. Instead it's more of a benefit that comes with the expectation that the institution adheres to certain policies. Therefore, if the institution doesn't comply, then government shouldn't be obligated to provide financial support.
While there is a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination, the Maine private school funding law itself creates a major issue. If the state is willing to give out money to all religious schools in order to provide funding for education in areas of the state where public schools are not accessible, then Crossroads should be given funding. Maybe I am assuming or missing information here, but if this school is the students' only option, its in the states best interest to provide them with an education regardless of their religious convictions. If this is not the case for Crossroads, it could have a slippery slope effect on similar cases in the future where isolated religious schools are unable to operate because public funding is suspended on the basis of discrimination. Because the state is giving funding to other religious schools, who very well may be following the discrimination guidelines, they are giving education to some religious interpretations and suspending others completely. This case is different from Bob Jones because going to college is not a constitutional right, whereas providing a public education is. Therefore the court should rule in favor of Crossroads.
I agree with most of the comments that have been posted. Maine has a compelling state interest in ensuring they are not funding discriminatory practices, whether they are direct or indirect. This is due to the fact that the public funding comes from taxpayer dollars, taxpayers who could be discriminated against by these practices. It only seems right to ensure that Crosspoint unholds nondiscriminatory standards. As many people have already mentioned, Maine is not telling Crosspoint they cannot practice their religious beliefs, rather, they must follow the same rules as every other school in order to receive funding.
Like many other people, I think Maine does have a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination in publicly funded education. The state’s goal is to make sure that taxpayer money is not used to support institutions that discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. By requiring all schools participating in the tuition program to comply with the Maine Human Rights Act, the state protects equal access to education and promotes inclusivity, which justifies its decision to deny public funding to Crosspoint and also makes this law facially neutral.
I believe that the school should not have access to the tuition program if the school refuses to comply with antidiscrimination requirements. While the school may believe that this exemption places a burden on their religion, the burden is indirect. The Maine Humans Rights act does not have the indiscriminatory requirements to interfere religion, but to act in the compelling interest of the state. As well, while them not being able to participate in this program could impact their profit, if the court argues similarly like they did so in Braunfeld v. Brown, they would uphold that indirect burden may make religion costly, however, that does not make the law unconstitutional.
I agree that the school should not have an exception from anti discrimination requirements. Maine has compelling state interest in preventing discrimination. The state is not saying they cannot practice these values, they just cannot use the aid of the state to further it, which is an indirect burden and not a violation of free exercise. Financial assistance is not a right for this school, it is contingent if they uphold the values of the state and continue fostering values that are for the good of public policy.
Post a Comment