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 11:04 AM

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
Rev. Sirico on Francis’ ‘Year of Mercy’
Pope Francis recently announced a “year of mercy,” making it easier for the Catholic Church to forgive women for having abortions. Acton’s President and Co-founder Robert Sirico went on WSJ Live to discuss this. Watch below: ...
Creation Care and Catholic Social Teaching
Pope Francis recently declared September 1 as the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, an annual day of prayer begun by the Orthodox Church in 1989. In conjunction with the event, Catholic Relief Services and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have released “Care for God’s Creation,” the first of a seven-part video series on Catholic social teaching. (Via: Crux) ...
Catholicism’s tension with the Enlightenment
In a recent article for The Stream, Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg asks the question, “Is Catholicism Compatible with the American Experiment?” Gregg cites an article by political philosopher Patrick Deneen who suggested that “the main argument among American Catholics will concern the relationship of modern liberal democracies–and, at a deeper level, the American Founding–with Catholicism.” Gregg doesn’t necessarily disagree with this assertion, but argues that it “reaches further back to the early modern period often called the Enlightenment.”...
Video: Wayne Grudem And Barry Asmus On A Solution To The Poverty Of Nations
So far, 2015 has given us our busiest Acton Lecture Series ever, and we’re pleased to share more of it with you today on the PowerBlog. Back on April 16, Acton had the privilegeof hosting Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus, who spoke on the topic of the book they jointly authored,The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution. First, the bios: Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary; he is the author or co-author of...
Subsidizing Subsidiarity: How Conservatives Failed New Orleans
This week marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina making landfall on the Gulf Coast. As always happens when remembering suchignominious events, we look back in hindsight to attempt to learn what could have been done differently. If we’re being honest with ourselves, we conservatives will admit that we share some of the blame for the disaster—just not in the way many of us realize. The colossal failures in leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina proved once again that,...
Court Rules March for Life Qualifies for Abortifacient Mandate Exemption Based on Moral, Not Just Religious, Objections
Imagine if the government were to tell an organization dedicated to veganism that, because of a new mandate, they must purchase a meat platter to serve at their monthly meetings and that the chair cushions in their conference room must be made of leather. Appalled by this governmental intrusion, the vegans ask to be excluded from the mandate since none of their members wish to eat bologna while sitting on dead cow skin. They also point out that a group...
Psalm 19 and Human Flourishing
The mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. We seek to articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing. That phrase—“human flourishing”—has e such a buzzword, though, that it’s in danger of losing any real meaning. As Scott Swain says, “Due to its widespread usage across our culture, its susceptibility to multiple meanings, and its...
Acton Institute Selected as Templeton Freedom Award Finalist for Poverty Inc. Documentary
The Acton Institute has been named as one of six finalists for this year’s $100,000 Templeton Freedom Award for its documentary film, Poverty, Inc. The announcement of the finalists was made Monday by the Atlas Network, a Washington-based organization that advances the work of market-oriented public policy organizations all over the world. The winner will be selected Nov. 12 in New York. Atlas’ description of Poverty, Inc. says the documentary “provides prehensive perspective on the issue, giving voice to charity...
The Moral Dimension of Work
“The world is not a parsimonious place, in spite of the dogmas of the ecologists,” says James V. Schall in this week’s Acton Commentary. Our most unsettling economic problems are actually not economic but moral—moral ones that cannot be simply passed on from generation to generation. They need to be chosen and internalized by each person in each generation at the risk of deflecting material goods from their proper purposes. Work likewise is not exclusively for its own sake. Rather...
Can Capitalism Save the Arts?
Capitalism is routinely castigated as an enemy of the arts, with much of the finger-pointing bent toward monsters of profit and efficiency. Other critiques take aim at more systemic features, fearing that the type of industrialization that markets sometimes tend toward will inevitably detach artists from healthy social contexts, sucking dry any potential for flourishing as a result. But what if the opposite is true? I offer the argument over at The Federalist. Free economies introduce their own unique challenges...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved