Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
School choice is in jeopardy in a case before the Supreme Court
School choice is in jeopardy in a case before the Supreme Court
Mar 18, 2025 12:04 PM

While the case before the Court concerns rural Maine, the implications for parents across the nation are clear: state funds should continue to be available to parents for religious schools and is no violation of the Establishment Clause.

Read More…

The difference between a “Christian organization” and an “organization that does Christian things” might seem like a distinction without a difference. But it is precisely this difference that is at the heart of the question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin, a school-choice case that the justices are scheduled consider on Dec. 8, 2021.

The case involves families who live in towns in rural Maine too small to support secondary schools in a state that makes education for all not just a right but also mandatory. For nearly 150 years, Maine has administered one of the oldest school-choice programs in the nation to address this problem. And for more than 100 of those years, families who qualified for the financial benefits of the scheme could freely decide where their children would be educated.

But in 1980, Maine’s attorney general advised the state government that providing benefits for families who elected to send their children to religious schools violated the U.S. Constitution. Acting on this guidance, the state legislature later amended the law to exclude religious schools from the choices available to Maine families who otherwise qualified for the program. The attorney general’s opinion and the law that followed is based on an erroneous understanding of the Establishment Clause and an egregious disregard for the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It is the privilege of my firm, First Liberty Institute, to serve as co-counsel alongside Institute for Justice to the families impacted by this law.

To affirm Maine’s discriminatory law, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that while it is not permissible for the state to discriminate on the basis of the religious status of the schools selected by Maine parents, it is permissible for the state to discriminate on the basis of the religious use of the funds that would be expended on behalf of those families. What’s the difference? To most people there isn’t one.

It is a near certainty that the oral arguments in December will engage the legal distinction between “status” and “use” in the context of First Amendment jurisprudence, and it will be interesting to see how the justices wrestle with this distinction when the Court’s ruling is made sometime in 2022. Given the prescience of several justices who often tend to foresee the cultural and social implications of not just the es of cases but also the grounds on which those es are based, such issues will likely make at least an appearance in one or more of the Court’s published opinions.

It is not just Maine families who should be interested in the e of this case. All Americans, whether or not they are religious, stand to be impacted by the Court’s decision. The distinction between “status” and “use” considered by the lower court is the first step down a disturbing path and is problematic for two main reasons.

First, a status/use distinction in the law will require the next court to define those “religious things” that constitute “religious use.” Is St. Joseph’s Catholic School able to accept students under the Maine scheme as long as the school does not celebrate weekly Mass for the students? What if the school excludes clergy from its staff? Are a few nuns as teachers permissible? Or are the nuns only permissible if they happen to be teachers rather than teach at the school as a means of fulfilling their religious vocation? Once the principle is inevitably extrapolated to individuals, how do we differentiate between a “Muslim” and a “person who does Muslim things”? How do we differentiate between a “Jew” and a “person who does Jewish things”? Such a legal distinction not only invites but requires judicial determination of a host of questions beyond petence of even the most sympathetic court.

Second, this shift would signal a break between a person’s identity and the essential features of that identity. Our culture has already taken more than a few steps along this unhelpful path. Am I a Christian—or a person who does “Christian things,” whatever those things may be? Is my wife a teacher, or is she a person who teaches things? Is our family pet a dog or a creature who does dog-like things? The problem with such an understanding of identity is that a non-Christian is free to do Christian things, and every Christian does plenty of non-Christian or even un-Christian things. Non-teachers teach things all the time. And while a bit more of a stretch, it is not inconceivable to imagine a non-dog that does dog-like things.

Our identities so conceived would atomize us pletely that collective identities and distinctions would be lost. Each person’s identity es a discrete list of preferences, actions, and opinions. How do we then define mon good around which munities are organized? How do we conceive of a rational basis for solidarity in a world in which we have no ability to read ourselves into the circumstances of others and no rational basis for empathy?

The judges of the First Circuit know, I suspect, that funding that passes to religious organizations is not a per se violation of the Establishment Clause and have adopted this “status/use” distinction as an end run around clear precedent. They have not actively conspired to sow the seeds for the deconstruction of the identities of those who engage in religious practice. However, in adopting this artificial distinction regarding the institutions that the religiously observant have built, this is precisely what they have done.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Missiles, threats and sanctions: How should the United States respond to North Korea?
The North Korean people are not the same as the North Korean regime. Photo: “Pyongyang, North Korea” by (stephan) (CC BY-SA 2.0) Today the United Nations Security Council will meet and vote on a resolution to impose new restrictions on North Korea. This resolution is a direct response to recent North Korean missile activity and threats from Kim Jong Un. On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile and claimed it could hit any nation on Earth and...
5 Facts about the 9/11 aftermath
Today marks the 16th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil. Here are five facts you should know about what happened in the aftermath of the events on September 11, 2001: 1. It took 99 days—until December 19, 2001—for thefires at Ground Zeroto be extinguished.Cleanup at Ground Zero wasn’t pleted until May 30, 2002. It took 3.1 million hours of labor to clean up 1.8 million tons of debris at a total cost of cleanup of $750...
A holistic view of Christian vocation
In a society where personal identity is conveyed by one’s job title, it is of little wonder that the nation’s youth are so anxious about career choice. But what if your identity is found in Christ? What if living vocationally has nothing to do with finding the “perfect” career? ...
7 Figures: Income and poverty in the U.S.
The U.S. Census Bureau released its latest report on e and poverty in the United States today. Here are seven figures from the report you should know about: 1. Real median household e increased 3.2 percent between 2015 and 2016—from $ 57,230 to $59,039. (This figure surpasses the previous high reached in 1999.) 2. Real median es in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. (This is...
Explainer: What you should know about single-payer healthcare
Today, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is unveiling his legislation for a single-payer healthcare system. Here is what you should know about single-payer systems and Sanders’s proposal: What is single-payer healthcare? In a single-payer healthcare system, the government pays for all medically necessary service for of all citizens, regardless of e or ability to pay. Does the U.S. have a single-payer system? In the U.S. most citizens over the age of 65 and people under 65 who have specific disabilities qualify...
Upstream: A Conversation on Artist Renee Radell
On the Upstream segment of this week’s Radio Free Acton podcast, I discuss the visual art of Renee Radell with Gregory Wolfe. Radell’s work is the subject of Renee Radell: Web of Circumstance (Predmore Press, 2016, 220 pages, $80), a book presenting a career overview of her artistic efforts. In his review of Web of Circumstance for The University Bookman, Wolfe – founder and editor of Image magazine – determines the panying text by Eleanor Heartney superficial in contrast to...
The monopoly markup
Note: This is post #48 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Ever wonder why pharmaceuticals are so expensive? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Alex Tabarrok shows how low elasticity of demand results in monopoly markups. This is especially the case with goods that involve the “you can’t take it with you” effect (for example, people with serious medical conditions are relatively insensitive to the price of life-saving drugs) and the “other people’s money” effect (if third...
Erasing the cross: Public vs. private sector
The European discount grocery chain Lidl stirred controversy by removing the cross from its products’ labels, so as not to give offense. Eagle-eyed consumers noticed that Eirdanous, its Greek food line, featured a picture of a blue-domed Greek Orthodox Church by the sea – but unlike every other such church, its cupola was not topped by a cross. pany Photoshopped the symbol of Christ’s victory over death and Hell off of the Anastasi(in Greek, literally, “resurrection”) Church inSantorini. Perhaps to...
The archbishop of Canterbury eyes a ‘broken’ economy
Defending the free market and advocating for ever-greater access to capital is of paramount importance during uneven economic patches. That is how Christians should ments from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who recently said that the economy is “broken.” The archbishop cited familiar economic data of unequal economic growth, youth hopelessness, and questions about wage stagnation. Many of these are part of a ing report from the IPPR’s Commission on Economic Justice, of which he is a member. But...
The consuming self as tyrant
“Consumerism is, quite precisely, the consuming of life by the things consumed. It is living in a manner that is measured by having rather than being.” -Richard John Neuhaus In a free economy, we each serve distinct roles as both producers and consumers. As producers, we create and serve, leveraging the work of our hands to meet the needs of our neighbors. As consumers, however, we look to ourselves and our own needs. Consumption is good and necessary thing, but...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved