“Maine’s ‘non-religious’ demand for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the First Amendment Free Practice clause,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. “Regardless of how the benefit and limitation are described, the program works to identify and exclude schools that are otherwise eligible based on their religious practice.”
Roberts was joined by Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal judges disagreed.
It is a loss for critics to say that the decision would amount to a further erosion of the separation between church and state. Although only one other state, Vermont, has a similar program, the court ruling could inspire other states to follow similar programs.
Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School, said that “today’s decision puts states in a difficult position” if they choose to provide tuition assistance programs.
“Although it is framed as a school selection decision, it is difficult to see how this will not affect a much wider range of government benefit programs – putting the government in a difficult position to choose between direct funding for religious activities or non-funding not at all, “Vladeck said.
Writing a dispute with Judge Elena Kagan and in part Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Stephen Breyer said that the court “had never before ruled in the Court’s judgment today, that a state should (cannot) use state resources” to pay for religious education as part of a curriculum designed to provide free public schooling throughout the state.
Responding to Breyer’s emphasis on “government neutrality,” Roberts wrote that “there is nothing neutral about Maine.”
“The state,” he said, “pays tuition for some students in private schools – as long as they are not religious.”
“This is discrimination against religion,” Roberts said.
“The management of this allowance by Maine is subject to the principles of free exercise governing any such public benefit program – including the prohibition of denying the allowance based on the recipient’s religious exercise,” he added.
Sotomayor, in a dispute of its own, set Tuesday’s ruling in line with other recent moves by the court to extend religious freedom, accusing the court of tearing down “the wall between church and state that the Framers struggled to build.” .
The majority, he wrote, did so “by embracing arguments from previous separate texts and ignoring decades of precedent that give governments flexibility in navigating the tension between the clauses of religion.”
“As a result, in just a few years, the Court has revised the constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule allowing states to refuse funding to religious organizations to a rule that in many cases requires states to subsidize religious catechism with taxpayer dollars. “, said Sotomayor. .
Religious conservatives and organizations praised the decision, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Assemblies of America, which issued a brief report on the case.
“This Supreme Court ruling opens the door to our state and local advocacy efforts in key places like New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” said Maury Litwack, executive director of Orthodox Union’s Teach Coalition.
Kelly Shackelford, president, chief executive officer and chief executive officer of the First Liberty Institute, called the decision “a great day for religious freedom in America.”
“We are delighted that the Court has reaffirmed that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country,” Sackleford said in a statement. “Parents in Maine, and across the country, can now choose the best education for their children without fear of government punishment.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
