Religious Schools and State Aid: Insights from a Supreme Court Argument

Breaking Down the Argument

The U.S. Supreme Court recently hosted a **lively debate**, giving us a glimpse into crucial issues around education and religion. Families from Maine are advocating for their right to include religious schools in a state tuition program. They argue that excluding these schools amounts to **religious discrimination**. This nearly two-hour argument tackled heavy topics, from potential religious conflict to the implications of various educational philosophies such as Marxism and critical race theory.

Equal Treatment, Not Special Treatment

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh laid it down nicely during the argument in Carson v. Makin. He pointed out that these parents are looking for **equal treatment**. They want to be treated like any other parent sending their children to a secular school. Sounds fair, right? According to Kavanaugh, they’re just asking for the same opportunities their neighbors enjoy.

The Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Jr., voiced similar concerns. He’s noted before that if Maine excludes schools based on their religious beliefs, it risks **discrimination** among different faiths. It’s all about fairness here—shouldn’t everyone have the same option?

Why Does Maine Exclude Religious Schools?

The state’s argument is straightforward. According to Christopher C. Taub, the chief deputy attorney general for Maine, public education aims to be **religiously neutral**. He believes the state should maintain a wall between school choice and religious affiliation. But should that wall also block religious schools from receiving state aid?

Michael E. Bindas, representing two Maine families, pushed hard against this idea. He argued that religious schools teach **religion**, but they also cover secular subjects just like any other school. In his perspective, these schools meet all the necessary requirements, and their only crime is being “religious.”

The Maine Tuition Program Explained

Maine has a tuition program serving around **4,500 students** in towns that don’t have high schools. Since 1980, only “non-sectarian” schools have qualified, keeping the religious ones on the sidelines. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that this program is **unique**. It’s not your typical school choice initiative; it’s rather a fallback for students in underserved areas.

Bindas reminded the court that Maine once allowed religious schools to participate before the **1980** attorney general’s opinion shifted the landscape. For **over a century**, these schools shared in the funding. Bindas stressed that this exclusion wasn’t necessary and it wasn’t about finding substitutes for public education.

Curious Questions from the Justices

Some conservative justices were intrigued by the fact that Maine approves out-of-state schools and some with a **tinge of religion**, yet pushes back against local religious schools. Justice Samuel A. Alito raised an interesting hypothetical. He questioned whether parents could send their kids to elite private schools using the same state funds. It’s a great point—if it’s acceptable for non-sectarian schools, why not for religious ones?

Taub responded by saying those elite schools provide a nearly identical education to public options. In basic terms, they’re not **promoting** a specific belief. Hence, they qualify.

No Room for Controversial Beliefs?

Alito also wanted to know how Maine would handle schools teaching potentially controversial ideas. He brought up schools promoting beliefs that could conflict with public education, like Marxism or white supremacy. Taub assured the court that Maine would likely not approve such institutions.

However, a question emerged. What about schools touting critical race theory? Taub seemed conflicted and admitted he wasn’t entirely sure what teaching critical race theory encompassed. It’s a messy topic, and he implied that if it contradicted public education, the state would likely consider addressing it.

The Tension Between Belief Systems

Justice Amy Coney Barrett highlighted that all schools come from some kind of belief system, religious or otherwise. She challenged Taub, asking how the state could determine if a religious school promoted discriminatory beliefs without examining the school’s core beliefs. Taub replied that if an education official noted suspicious anti-religious teachings, it would raise a **red flag** for further investigation.

Struggling with Discrimination Issues

As the arguments progressed, Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out some troubling policies at Maine private schools. He referred to policies that prohibit gay students and teachers, and others upholding gender inequality. Breyer expressed deep concern over what kind of religious disputes this ruling might trigger.

Bindas countered by stating those issues aren’t clear cut. He pointed out that Maine’s antidiscrimination laws include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, offering exemptions to religious entities. But while that may cover legal bases, it raises ethical questions.

Divisiveness vs. Choice

Bindas referenced a previous Supreme Court case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, arguing that this scenario is different. The Zelman case concluded that individual parental choices in a state aid program lessen the threat of **divisiveness** within religious contexts. However, Justice Kagan argued that Zelman merely examined whether a state could include religious schools, not whether it must.

Kagan went one step further, raising concerns about how taxpayer money would flow to schools that some see as openly **discriminatory**. She expressed skepticism about funneling public funds into institutions with potentially problematic beliefs.

The Government’s Take

The Biden administration, represented by Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, threw its support behind Maine’s restrictions. He contended that the state remained **neutral** by funding secular education only. Stewart argued that this policy aligns with the program’s intent of providing limited choices to families.

Wrapping It Up

This fascinating argument raises important questions about education, choice, and discrimination in America. It boils down to whether states like Maine can uphold policies excluding religious schools from receiving state funding, even when it means potentially discriminating against families wishing to send their kids to such schools.

As the justices grapple with these issues, the rollercoaster of debates around schooling and morality in America continues. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that the conversation about educational choice and **religious freedom** isn’t wrapping up anytime soon! Keep your eyes peeled for this landmark case to unfold; it could shape the future of religious education funding across the nation.