The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended a recent series of victories over religious interests, overturning a curriculum in Maine that barred public funds from going to schools that promote religious instruction. The vote was 6 to 3, with Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to write for the majority and the three liberals of the court to disagree. The case concerns an unusual program in a small situation that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have bigger implications as the more conservative court loosens the constitutional line between church and state. Under the program, jurisdictions in rural areas that are too sparsely populated to support their own public schools may arrange for school-age children to be taught in nearby schools, or the state will pay tuition to parents to send their children to private schools. schools. But these schools must be non-religious, which means they can not promote a belief or belief system or teach “in the light of that belief,” according to the state Department of Education. Roberts said the program could not survive court control. “There is nothing neutral about Maine’s program,” he wrote. “The state pays tuition for some students in private schools – as long as the schools are not religious. “This is discrimination against religion.” Judge Sonia Sotomayor, one of the dissidents, replied: “This Court continues to break down the wall between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” The case, Carson vs. Makin, is broadly similar to the one from Montana that was decided by the court last year. In that case, the court ruled that states should allow religious schools to participate in programs that provide scholarships to students attending private schools. Roberts, writing about the majority in the case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenuesaid a Montana Constitution provision banning aid to church-run schools violates the federal Constitution’s protection of the free practice of religion by discriminating against religious people and schools. “A state does not need to subsidize private education,” he wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it can not exclude some private schools just because they are religious.” Maine requires rural communities without public secondary schools to care for the education of their young residents in one of two ways. They can sign contracts with schools elsewhere or pay tuition at public or private schools chosen by their parents, provided they are, under state law, “a non-religious school under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. ” Contrary to the Supreme Court’s review, officials in Maine argued that the schools the students attend under the program should reflect the instruction offered in public schools. The Supreme Court has long ruled that states may choose to provide assistance to religious schools alongside other private schools. The question in the Montana and Maine cases was the opposite: do the states of May refuse to provide such assistance if it is made available to other private schools?
