The constitutional question is if the exclusion of religious institutions from Minnesota’s PSEO program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This brings into question if neutral and generally applicable laws can function as religious discrimination. There is also the constitutional question of if the programs funding of religious education is a violation of the Establishment Clause. I argue that there is an unconstitutional violation of the Free Exercise Clause because of the substantive and discriminatory impact on religion; further, I believe there is no violation of the Establishment Clause because the program has a secular purpose that does not directly aid religious institutions.
Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, this case has parallels to Locke v. Davey (2004) where Washington’s Promise Scholarship Program that excluded degrees in theology was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, in the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia cites Everson v. Board of Education, noting how generally available public benefits should not discriminate based on religion. These programs are to educationally benefit society, and excluding religion from these public benefits imposes burdens and is discriminatory towards religion.
The dissent in Locke also discusses that although being facially neutral, the law has disparate impacts that burden religion. Further, the funds are going to the child, rather than the institution, so there is no direct aid of religion. I agree with the dissent that Washington’s Promise Scholarship Program violates free exercise, similarly seeing Minnesota's law as unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Minnesota law seems to go further than the program in Locke because it excludes entire institutions rather than specific majors of study, making it an even clearer case of religious discrimination.
Furthermore, In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court ruled that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program. The Court emphasized that "But a State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise". Therefore, free exercise can be hindered even when a state is trying to protect against establishment. This extends to Minnesota’s law where educational funding programs that excluded religious institutions based on their religious character violate religious liberty.
Regarding the Establishment Clause, In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Ohio’s scholarship program was brought into question because Ohio taxpayers feared that the programs’ funding going to majority religious institutions was unconstitutional. The court held the program to be constitutional because of a secular purpose to educate low income children while remaining neutral in regards to religious and secular interests. Furthermore, the government is helping the child, rather than the institution, so the government is only indirectly aiding religion. Also, parents have the choice of secular options, yet are choosing religious education based on their faith. In terms of Minnesota’s program, I do not think there is a violation of the Establishment Clause for parallel reasons, seeing true neutrality as allowing religion because allowing and establishing are not the same.
This case also brings into light the question of parental rights in education. The Minnesota PSEO program interferes with parents’ ability to exercise their rights by preventing them from using generally available educational benefits that align with their religious convictions. The parents want their children to have equal educational opportunities while being able to have a community that shares in their faith. This puts parents in a position to choose between their child’s education and their religious upbringing. Since parents have the right to parent their children, I believe the PSEO program's exclusion of religious institutions impacts parental, as well as religious, rights.
In conclusion, I believe the amendment to Minnesota's PSEO program that excludes religious institutions violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment while posing no Establishment Clause concerns. Government programs cannot exclude public benefits because of religious character, and religious liberty requires that people of faith have equal access to public benefits without having to sacrifice their religious convictions. However, the opposing side may see issues with public funds indirectly aiding religion. What do you think?
7 comments:
I thought you did a really great job breaking this case down. I’m in agreement that the amendment to Minnesota’s PSEO program feels like a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I especially liked how you pointed out that the law isn’t really neutral because it targets religious institutions just for being religious, which goes against what the Court said in Carson v. Makin.
Additionally (as you mentioned), the funding goes to the student, not the school itself, so the form of aid could be interpreted at best as indirect. Because of this, it is harder to make the case that the government is directly endorsing religion. I also think the point you made about parental rights is huge - parents should be able to use public benefits without having to give up their religious convictions.
Overall, I think your argument shows that excluding religious schools from a generally available benefit isn’t about neutrality - it’s discrimination. Really well argued!
I agree with your position in this case. Excluding religious institutions from the PSEO program does violate the Free Exercise Clause. Withholding the funds creates an unfair burden on religious families. When providing public benefits, neutrality is essential to protecting religious liberty. Allowing equal access to funds does not advance religion; it just allows families the right to educate their children in accordance with their beliefs.
I agree with your analysis here. The Minnesota amendment creates a false choice between education opportunity and religious conviction. As you noted, Carson v. Makin established that excluding religious institutions from generally available benefits constitutes discrimination. Also, the fact that the funds are going to students and not directly to the institutions further weakens any Establishment Clause concerns. While this policy is facially neutral, it imposes substantial burdens on religious families simply seeking equal access to educational benefits that are available to others.
The funds are simply meant to encourage education, to discriminate against religious options entirely is declare that there is only a certain set of government-approved subjects worthy of being supported. The financial aid here is meant to help students take classes, and it’s up to the students to determine which classes those are since it’s their futures they have to worry about.
I agree that educational funding programs shouldn't exclude religious institutions. As you explained this would violate religious liberty. It is not neutral to exclude them because it target religious institutions for the beliefs they hold. I also agree that the government is helping the child take classes, instead of necessarily aiding religion. The purpose of the program ultimately supports the child's education, and is not intended to promote specific religious institutions.
I agree with your analysis. Excluding religious institutions from Minnesota’s PSEO program burdens families wishing to integrate faith and education, violating the Free Exercise Clause. As you pointed out, decisions like Carson v. Makin and Zelman support the constitutionality of funding programs with religious options driven by private choice. This amendment undermines neutrality by discriminating against religion. Parents shouldn’t have to choose between public benefits and faith.
I agree, because educational funding should not be hostile toward religious options, which would not be neutral toward all viewpoints and instead would be discriminatory toward religion. The government would be allowing the child the option to go to school, rather than directly aiding religion.
Post a Comment