Supreme Court Could Be Headed To A Major Unraveling Of Public School Funding

[Roland99]

Supreme Court Could Be Headed To A Major Unraveling Of Public School Funding
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/798668729/supreme-court-could-be-headed-to-a-major-unraveling-of-public-school-funding

The focal point of Wednesday's argument was a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a tax subsidy for both religious and non-religious private schools. The Montana court said that the subsidy violated a state constitutional provision barring any state aid to religious schools, whether direct, or indirect.

On the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday, Kendra Espinoza, a divorced mother of two, explained why she is challenging that ruling.

"We are are a Christian family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

...

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito compared the exclusion of parochial schools from taxpayers-funded aid programs to unconstitutional discrimination based on race.

They’re in no way being discriminated

Nothing is stopping them from using public schools and indoctrinating their kids at home

[Thomas Hurt]

1. I have a question for Kendra Espinoza

Why isn't the religious instruction your children receive in your home, and your church not enough to instill christian values in your children? Are you a failure as a parent? Is your clergy incompetent?


Why? Because it isn't about her children but proselytizing other people's' children.

[blm]

3. ✔️

[Roland99]

5. +8 (one for each Beatitude which they probably don't know anything about)

[getagrip_already]

2. twisted logic, but not surprising....

This is like saying you can't withhold funds from a white-only school because it is unfair discrimination based on race.

Sure, because the school is for whites only, it is racist to not give them taxpayer funding because of their race. Uhh-huh.

[Opel_Justwax]

4. Fixed it for you.

"We are are a Satanic family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Satanic Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of Satanic background."

[Roland99]

7. So we tax the hell out of churches. Be a very nice windfall

[Buckeyeblue]

6. I would think because the original ruling applied to all private schools it would be ok.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. "They will know we are Christians by our love." Scratch that song.

[Cosmocat]

9. Cool - I am sure everyone will be just fine with funding Islam, Hindu, Buddist schools, ect.

nm

[Bettie]

10. I'm still trying to figure out how it is 'based on race'

to exclude private schools from public school funding.

Or are they saying that well-off, white, excessively religious assholes are a separate race?

ETA: I don't want my kids taught hate at school, nor do I want my taxes to pay for the children of others being taught hate as a "value".

[Wounded Bear]

11. Well, that's basically what the Nazis believed...

[sl8]

12. Argument analysis - Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG

From https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-divided-in-montana-school-choice-case/

Argument analysis: Justices divided in Montana school-choice case

Posted Wed, January 22nd, 2020 2:31 pm by Amy Howe

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the latest chapter of the battle over the use of public funding for religious schools. Supporters of such funding argue that the government should not be allowed to discriminate against religious families and schools, while opponents warn that requiring the government to allow public funds to be used for religious schools could harm public education. Both of those issues were at the forefront of today’s oral argument, as was the question of whether the lawsuit should continue at all. By the time the justices left the bench, it appeared that the outcome could hinge on the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer.

The issue came to the court in a challenge to a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that invalidated a tax-credit program on the ground that the scholarships created by the program could be used at religious schools. In 2015, the Montana legislature established the program, which provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $150 for individuals and businesses who donate to private scholarship organizations. The organizations then use the donated money to provide scholarships for students who want to attend private schools – which, in Montana, are overwhelmingly religious. But under a rule announced by the Montana Department of Revenue shortly after the program was passed, families could not use the scholarships at religious schools. Doing so, the department explained, would violate the state constitution’s ban on aid for churches and religious schools.

Kendra Espinoza, a single mother of two daughters, and two other Montana mothers went to court to challenge the rule. Explaining that they were “counting on” the scholarship money to able to keep their children in a Christian school in Kalispell, Montana, they argued that the exclusion of religious schools from the program would violate the federal constitution. The Montana Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the tax-credit program violated the state constitution because families were allowed to use the scholarships at religious schools. Espinoza asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling, which the justices agreed last June to do.

Arguing for Espinoza and the other parents challenging their exclusion from the tax-credit program, lawyer Richard Komer told the justices that the question before them was whether the federal constitution allows the “wholesale exclusion” of religious schools from a state scholarship program. The answer, Komer continued, is that it does not.

[...]

More at link.