Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

COURTS & LAW

Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction

By Robert Barnes
June 21, 2022 at 10:45 a.m. EDT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended a recent streak of victories for religious interests, striking down a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to schools that promote religious instruction. ... The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the majority and the court's three liberals in dissent. ... The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have greater implications as the more conservative court relaxes the constitutional line between church and state.

Under the program, jurisdictions in rural areas too sparsely populated to support public schools of their own can arrange to have nearby schools teach their school-age children, or the state will pay tuition to parents to send their kids to private schools. But those schools must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote a faith or belief system or teach "through the lens of this faith," in the words of the state's department of education.

Roberts said that program could not survive the court's scrutiny. ... "There is nothing neutral about Maine's program," he wrote. "The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools -- so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion." ... Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the dissenters, answered: "This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."

The case, Carson v. Makin, is broadly similar to one from Montana decided by the court last year. In that case, the court ruled that states must allow religious schools to participate in programs that provide scholarships to students attending private schools. ... Roberts, writing for the majority in the case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, said a provision of Montana's Constitution banning aid to schools run by churches ran afoul of the federal Constitution's protection of the free exercise of religion by discriminating against religious people and schools. (1)

{snip}

By Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Twitter https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

(1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/21/supreme-court-maine-religious-schools/

---

Original post:

Scotus rules 6-3 that Maine's tuition assistance program must cover religous schools

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- -- --

See more here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-tuesday-june-21/

SCOTUSblog:

"Here's the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf "

"Because the benefits hinge on whether a school is religious, the Chief writes, the Maine program "effectively penalizes the free exercise" of religion."

"Breyer from the dissent:
The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from "mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion." It next forbids them to make any law "prohib- iting the free exercise thereof." The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second."

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. SICKENING.

[cilla4progress]

3. FFS...

Mitch got what he/Putin paid for.

[JohnSJ]

4. We owe so much to the Susan Sarandon's, Nina Turner's, Cornel West's, etc etc etc

[Effete Snob]

41. Someone thinks that group consists of "Democratic public figures"

That person should be set straight by pointing out that not a single one of these people, who have done their level best to kneecap actual Democrats, is presently a candidate for any elected office, and none of them holds any elected office. Nor will they.

[Eugene]

75. In point of fact...

Nina Turner is a progressive Democrat, recent Democratic primary candidate for Congress and a former state senator.

Some here don't like her views on Israel-Palestine and she's not a fan of Joe Biden, but she is a Democratic public figure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner

[LymphocyteLover]

88. Effete Snob's post is still accurate

[Effete Snob]

102. She lost her primary

She is not an elected official and she is not a candidate for any office.

[Cha]

112. THANK YOU!💙

💙💛

[Cha]

111. Many Here Don't Like NT saying "Voting

for Joe Biden is like eating shit..

Bernie Sanders' Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner Compares Voting For Biden To Eating 'S**t'

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nina-turner-joe-biden_n_5f200c04c5b638cfec49ecd5


And, she Pushes 3rd Party Voting.. says she wouldn't vote for Hillary.

Nina Turner, a 2020 Bernie campaign chair, refused to support Hillary days before the 2016 election.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12872234

Don't tell me she's a "Dem".. Please don't try selling us on Nina Turner, Eugene.. It's Not Happening.

💙💛

[Effete Snob]

114. Bingo

Nina Turner’s contributions have not been constructive.

[Cha]

117. Just the Contrary.. and it's Heartwarming

when People actually pay Attention and can see that.

So Thank You, ES!

💙💛

[betsuni]

119. "There is absolutely no evidence that shows Manchin & Sinema aren't doing exactly

what Biden is asking of them": Nina's conspiracy theory of the day. "They're doing his bidding in the Senate because they all have the same donors."

The belief is that all Democrats are corrupt (corporatists) and only think about donor money (which always goes directly into their pockets and never to, like, pay for campaigns and things), have the same economic policies as Republicans but pretend to be liberal ("ignore" the working class blah blah blah), they're secretly happy with Republican policy (neoliberals) and in cahoots with them. Biden (establishment) is plotting with Manchin & Sinema in smokey backrooms enjoying fancy canapés and champagne to ensure he will fail to get his agenda passed because he has to do everything donors want (all donors are right-wing and evil) because corrupt. The end.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

77. Let's not forget Ralph Nader

After putting Al Gore and the Democrats down he showed up to a Cisco Sytems shareholder meeting to complain his dividend wasn't large enough.

[JohnSJ]

81. Very true

[SunImp]

103. We shouldn't forget to thank GOP politicians, Fox and RW social media for there part in this

Also this is for the 2020 elections, but I'm sure these tweeters have been spreading false claims during the 2016 cycle too.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=b_Iu47CIkGnpKcCnLDL6tg

[IronLionZion]

5. Redistributing the wealth from taxpayers to religious entities.

I feel like we have invaded other countries who engaged in this sort of theocracy.

In case anyone forgot the very first amendment to our constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This sounds deliciously close to establishment of state religion.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. That might be the idiotic "technicality"

Congress shall make no law...

and in this case, we're talking the "state" (of Maine).

[sl8]

76. No, the First Amendment is fully incorporated.

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2022, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's Wikipedia's blurb about incorporation of the Establishment Clause:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

[...]

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. The process of incorporating the two Religion Clauses in the First Amendment was twofold. The first step was the Supreme Court's conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] Conceptually, this raised few difficulties: the Due Process Clause protects those rights in the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"[11] and free exercise of religion is a quintessential individual right (and had been recognized as such at the state level from the beginning).[12]

Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947[13] proved to be problematic in several ways and subject to critique.[12][14][15][16][17] The controversy surrounding Establishment Clause incorporation primarily stems from the fact that one of the intentions of the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding (at least six states had established religions at the founding)[18] – a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation.[19] Critics, such as Clarence Thomas, have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights),[18][20] does not purport to protect individual rights.[18]

[...]

[BumRushDaShow]

86. Well as we know

there are a bunch of "literalists" on the Court who want to go back to "original intent".

I know the issue of "school vouchers" has been raging for years and years and this is their way of having their cake and eat it to.

[Igel]

113. It's the original intent of the law.

SCOTUS isn't going to get rid of one amendment because it amended previous text. I mean, that's rather the purpose of the process of amending, to update the written text to newer views and circumstances.

The newer intents are what would be "original" with the text of the amendment.

It's like asking what the Federalists and anti-Federalists thought about the 14th amendment. Passed in 1868, 79 years after the Constitution was ratified. Any Federalist or anti-Federalist whose views would be considered would have been well over 100--and probably over 120--making it rather late to ask them to gauge their opinions.

[BumRushDaShow]

116. "The newer intents are what would be "original" with the text of the amendment."

Wish that would have been the case for the 15th Amendment but alas.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

97. Thanks. I wish we could recommend individual posts. NT

[NullTuples]

66. And unlike all other NPO's, churches don't have to report money-in, money-out to the IRS

So those taxpayer funds can end up being funneled pretty much anywhere.

[Igel]

115. Maybe not now.

I filed the IRS and INS forms for the church I belonged to/worked for in the mid-late 1980s. Lots of numbers on them there forms.

I also prepared the reports for the CPA/auditor for approval by the church's board. Now, the board was in the pastor's pocket, but the CPA? Things weren't according to Hoyle, he'd let the board, the pastor, and me have with with both barrels. With the full and explicit statement that he would not sign off on anything amiss, and if called to testify would have no problem naming names and citing dates.

His wife was in the church; he, emphatically, hadn't been ... for 30 years of marriage.

Now, that was 35 years ago. Maybe things have changed.

[NullTuples]

118. Through a variety of mechanisms, Republicans have prevented even one IRS church audit since 2007

And that's just concerning things like the Johnson amendment.

Honestly, I'm glad your church had internal controls but what happens inside a church - between the pastor, the board, the auditor, etc. - is completely outside of my concern. It's valid only inside that self referencing world.

Did you know there are now financial investment products designed specifically to legally move "church" money into "pastor" money? They make creative use of the pastor's retirement fund and often involve offshore accounts. There are so many ways a dishonest church can funnel money, which is why it should be crucial for them to have to account for all money coming in and all money going out, to a truly independent public third party such as the IRS.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Updated 10:35 AM ET, Tue June 21, 2022

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

[rurallib]

16. "latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights"

Or, as I see it, impose support of religions on us non-religious.

[azureblue]

30. this will be great!

that statement is a two edged sword - now some kid can stand up in some school that teaches religion and say that his religion does not believe what they are teaching but they can't toss him out because of religious freedom. Like some Jewish kid, or a Catholic in a Baptist school. If they pray then they have to, using the same ruling say prayers from any other religion of kids in the school too. And let me tell you, one "Hail Mary" will piss off a Baptist real quick..

The Sc makes these stupid rulings never stop to think of blowback. But here it comes..

[Effete Snob]

42. This ruling does not, in any way shape or form, require religious schools to tolerate non-believers

[wnylib]

72. I am a church member and I oppose this ruling, too.

It is not the responsibility or business of government to financially support religion in any way, shape, or form.

The people who support this idea will get a rude awakening when a government that invests money in their religion decides to regulate their investment. They will cry "freedom of religion" again, from a different perspective.

Europe and the US went through this cycle centuries ago and learned a lesson from it. Today's zealots are rejecting the lesson but will learn from their own experience what they now refuse to learn from past experiences.

When religion and government lock themselves together, they both suffer from the resulting tyranny.

[yaesu]

8. Further proof that the GOP court is the root of all evil. nt

[mobeau69]

17. Talibans on the move. Another mail on the coffin of American democracy.

There are things more important than the almighty dollar.

Pukes hate public education.

[madaboutharry]

9. The SC has gone rogue.

What a group of awful people. They don’t care about The Constitution. They interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. They are a political body using The Constitution to advance right-wing theocratic policy and law. The corruption is gross.

[HUAJIAO]

31. No. The SC has not gone rogue. It is REPUBLICANS on the SC who have gone rogue.

A very crucial difference.

And we need to always state this. Not "the SC--
not "Congress" not the House, etc..


I know what you mean(lol) but I think this distinction is important.

[madaboutharry]

34. Ok.

6 members of the SC have gone rogue.

[PA Democrat]

10. So will religious schools be allowed to exclude certain categories of students?

For example can "Christian" schools exclude non-Christian students or LGBTQ students? Or what about students with special education needs?

[Deminpenn]

45. We have a local Reformed Presbytarian college in

my hometown that does exactly that. They will not accept students or employees who are not avowed "Christians". They think because they don't accept direct federal money, they can discriminate as they please, but they take many kinds of public funds ranging from renting their athletic facilities to the local school district to subsidized public goods like water and roads for which they pay no local taxes being they are a college.

[MarcA]

92. Perhaps those would be employees and parents of those students

should withhold paying any taxes for education and make donations to their public schools. After all money is free speech according to the whackos like Thomas, Alito et al.

[C_U_L8R]

12. Let them fund the Pastafarian School of Noodlery

[DinahMoeHum]

78. Or the Wiccans, Satanists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Breaking News: Hard-right Theocratic leaning Supreme Court swings hard-right theocratic in its

decision. Garbage in, garbage out.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. So, when do they just 'decide' there is no separation between church and state? Hope

somebody applies for vouchers for an Islamic school and all other religious ones.

[867-5309.]

15. Is it a voucher with the full tuition going to their school?

Or some type of additional assistance?

[mobeau69]

21. A distinction without a difference.

[867-5309.]

23. I agree that either is wrong

Just wondering the extent of the immediate damage

[mobeau69]

29. Huge. The wall has been breached.

[House of Roberts]

18. From Amy Howe at the Scotusblog live chat:

This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of a Maine program that pays tuition for some students to attend private schools when their own school district does not operate a public secondary school.

So I understand there is no conflict as long as a district offers a school?

[rurallib]

27. A school district with out secondary schools?

Yet I would guess there is probably some tie in with another school district to provide that service.

Feels like Maine has some school structural problems. ETA - seems like tax money should go to redesigning an inadequate system.

[RoeVWade]

19. Looks like court approves to give government money to private schools who ban people they don't like

Heh. What is that, meritocracy?

[rurallib]

20. IMHO, therefore churches should be taxed

[mobeau69]

22. Yep.

[Wild blueberry]

80. Yes!

Have thought so for years. Lose their tax-exempt status. So should Dark Money "charities".

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

24. Does that include madrasa?

The term madrasa refers to Islamic religious schools at the primary and secondary levels. As an institution of learning, the madrasa is centuries old.

[ancianita]

28. It should but likely won't unless Muslims in Maine take a case to the state and appellate.

Wait 'til Satanic Temple sets up a school.

[in2herbs]

38. Let's all pray that they do! And let's all pray that belief systems other than Xian

get on the $$ bandwagon to finance their own education system.

This ruling will detrimentally exacerbate the efforts by AZ citizens working hard to save our public school system.

[ancianita]

55. Whuh??

Sorry, you are being ironic, right?

[in2herbs]

59. Not really. If the Xians get govt funding to spread their gospel they need to understand

that other belief systems are similarly entitled, as well.

As to the AZ reference, the legislature is debating expanding the voucher system to apply to those parents who want to send their children to an out of state private school.

[ancianita]

67. So you're okay with all this in general, am I right?

[in2herbs]

68. Absolutely NOT and I don't understand how you have interpreted it that way. What I am

saying is that if we are forced to accept this ruling we must shove the alternatives to this ruling down their throats!

[ancianita]

83. Ah, I see. Thanks for unconfusing me.

I was born in Maine, still have family there. I could be wrong, but from all my 20 or so family vacations there, and from what I've seen of Mainers, they tend not to put up long term fights, especially after a SCOTUS ruling. But they'd get a big kick out of the Satanic Temple's fights.

[Gore1FL]

73. I look forward to see what the Satanic Temple does with this. nt

[oldsoftie]

62. But why not? The decision doesnt specify a particular religion.

And as you say, if some Satanic group does it then they'd have to be given the same treatment right? Or Scientology?

[Marthe48]

84. a**holes on the court would say

'that's not what we meant.' And rule whatever it takes to cut non-Christians out of the ruling. Expand the fricking court before we lose more of the U.S. Constitution. gdi. I hate this.

And tax the churches. I know people who tithe every week. Get some of that going into government coffers.

[Zeitghost]

124. I ask this every time I see a comment on taxing churches

And never really get an answer, maybe you can be the first.

We tax organizations on net profit. So how do you tax an organization that by definition, does not turn a profit?

A for profit business has an incentive to ensure as much of their gross income as possible is left after paying bills, because that profit is largely passed onto the owners. A church has no incentive to do so because there is no ownership to pass the profit on to.

If a church was taxed on any income above and beyond expenses, they would simply ensure all income was spent by the end of the fiscal year. They would increase salaries, improve or build new facilities, increase spending on church programs or simply return it back to the members who donated it on 12/31 with the understanding it would just get donated right back on 1/1.

With no ownership incentive to create profit, you have no real mechanism to create taxable income.

[Marthe48]

125. In Ohio

and I'm not sure about other states. bear with me and forgive any errors I might put in. It has been 30 years since i worked in food service.

When I worked in food service, I was a cook and I got federal minimum. Waitresses got paid under the federal minimum. This is because it was assumed they would get tips. I was working at a small local restaurant when the federal govt. ruled that waitresses and other people who get part of their income from tips, had to add 15% to their gross. I thought it was really unfair, because the government assumed that all patrons would tip 15%. The reality was that many patrons tipped 0% and many more tipped 10% or less. Things might have changed for waiters since I worked in food service.

I brought this up, because I don't see a problem with estimating income to any church, and taxing that amount. If the government enacted taxing on churches, they could estimate the value of real estate, average number of attendees, and other considerations and come up with a fair tax. If the church felt the tax was too high, they could submit receipts of the weekly gate from sermons, gross and net on church suppers, and other sources of income. IRS does that for independent contractors. I had to hire a tax accountant, and she would explain the forms as she filled them in. She had me measure my house, measure my office, calculate cost of utilities for my office and equipment and help me get as many deductions as she could. The government could hire new tax experts, auditors and so on to help the churches get used to paying their fair share.

Or, the churches could stop preaching politics from their pulpits. Problem solved.

[Zeitghost]

126. I don't think treating them like individuals will work

Individuals are taxed on gross income (with some exceptions like 401K's and other deductions), not net like a business.

A huge church with lots of lower income members may spend all of it on expenses and have no real accumulation of money while a small church with wealthy donors might stockpile cash.

The only real way I see to tax religious organizations would be property taxes, but even that can be gotten around through lease agreements, etc.

[thatdemguy]

52. The way I read it yes.

It does not matter the religion that is taught at the school. It just says religious schools have to be able to get the money, not only catholic, or baptist or Jewish.

But lets be honest, how many Jewish or Islamic schools are there in rural Maine.

[ancianita]

25. Godammit. This christo-fascist SCOTUS.

Now begins their war of attrition in tearing down the wall between church and state.

The six robed bag men of corporate policy begin their owners' war of attrition against democratic institutions.

The ruling IS also against public education, which is just one of a number of fronts.

Their fascist war rulings are class (Citizens United), race (Voting Rights Act), and gender based (Roe and all precedents).

[llashram]

26. we are slowly

(picking up speed) moving toward a fascist state with religion as its cornerstone. With this Court America and its liberal-progressive citizens are in for the fight of our lives.

[TeamProg]

32. That's BULLSHIT! PUBLIC schools should simply educate, not indoctrinate. n/t

[maxsolomon]

44. conservatives are making this same argument against public education

teaching children "CRT" (the truth about our nation's history) or "Grooming" (acceptance of gender and sexuality differences).

it's not actually the same thing, but they're making the argument and winning - laws are being passed, curriculums are being censored.

[TeamProg]

48. Not the same at all, but I suppose it's an angle / wedge tht Cons will use. n/t

[maxsolomon]

51. Their religious indoctrination is just fine

Your liberal values are not - even though they are more reflective of Jesus' actual words.

[kelly1mm]

57. This ruling is about funding for PRIVATE schools (aka vouchers). If a state does not want to fund

private religious based schools they cannot fund other private non-religious based schools. Easy-peasy fix is to not have vouchers.

[Dr. Strange]

87. Then we need to build public schools to provide public education.

If we're not going to build schools in these rural areas and churches are, then maybe that's on us? If we care about public education, then let's build those schools!

[AllaN01Bear]

33. ye scoutus today ignores that document and ruleing by precident. or reverse of ye of.

[markie]

35. so wrong

[minstrel76]

36. Apparently, we need a constitutional amendment that specifies separation of church and state.

Even though this is something that has already been part of our American tradition and promoted by actual Founding Fathers.

[in2herbs]

46. I think that what we need are some Dems in Congress who have the spine to

publicly say they disagree with SCOTUS because of the separation of Church and State, and who are willing to back that up by proposing laws that cripples this decision. It will be decades before it will be overturned unless Biden expands the court.

Since this expands the school system without a funding source, a law could be based on reasoning to tax the system that is causing the expansion (churches). Don't just try to pass it once, bring it to the floor every week!

As a side, because we all know how ridiculously ignorant the Aliot decision will be, I would like the justices to be laughed at by hearing the blast of endless laughter streaming over microphones, megaphones, etc., every day they are in session.

[minstrel76]

101. I agree.

I think it's long past time to start taxing churches. Especially since it's the Evangelical megachurches who are working to do away with the separation of church and state and who contributed bigly to the GOP rigging the SCOTUS in the first place. In the meantime, we must resist these Christo-Fascists, their political machinations, and their attempts to force their religious viewpoints on everyone else. As they sow, so shall they also reap.

[alterfurz]

39. Justice Winnfield dissents...

[JohnnyRingo]

40. There's an easy cure for this.

An instructor or someone on the school board should introduce Islam or Buddhism to the students. Imagine the furor if a teacher issued prayer rugs or marked a wall in the direction of Mecca. Call it a geography lesson. Let's introduce the children to Eastern meditation.

What if a school board member insisted on every child receiving an issue of The Watchtower each month. The Jehovah Witnesses would jump at the opportunity to supply them, but would parents want religious instruction to continue? What?... they're Christians too.

I can't imagine the response when these children bring home their school issued Torah. "The teacher says to talk to you about conversion."

[mainer]

43. oh for god's sake

time to introduce the flying spaghetti monster.

[in2herbs]

47. I'd prefer that as a religion over the one's Xians push. nt

[Emile]

49. What about the tax payers who don't want their money

going to religious schools? Will this allow tax dollars to pay for abortions now?

[BComplex]

50. Most corrupt supreme court in the history of our country.

THIS is what the Heritage Foundation has done. Creating an antidemocratic nation in favor of fascism.

[Raster]

94. Let's not forget #TheFederalistSociety that handpicked the judges they deemed necessary to...

...continue to gut the "separation of church and state."

[BComplex]

110. I think all the members are the same people. You're right. The Federalist Society

is also the group behind thinking States should have the right to ignore Federal laws.

[Lonestarblue]

53. The problem with this specific school that was just ignored is that they are anti-LGBTQ.

Most Christian schools are. They refuse to admit any students who are LGBTQ. Nor will they accept the straight kids of same-sex couples. They of course would not hire a gay teacher. The ecclesiastical SC just gave religious schools everywhere the right to exclude certain kids because of their gender preferences and even because of their parents’ gender choices. So how are the kids who can’t go to school there to be educated? I would think their parents would have a case for discrimination in an area where other options do not exist.

Basically, the SC just gave the green light to any religious group to totally ignore federal anti-discrimination laws. So Congress passes laws (or at least they used to), and this Court just says, no, we’re making the laws and we’re giving right-wing Christians whatever they want.

[rockfordfile]

56. I don't agree with that shit. that's un-American as hell. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for bigotry

[mahatmakanejeeves]

58. From Mark Joseph Stern:

Hat tip, themaguffin

ConstitutionalMischiefHat Retweeted

And here's Sotomayor spelling out the implications of today's ruling: A state's effort to preserve the constitutional separation of church and state now qualifies as a violation of free exercise. The majority is repealing the establishment clause. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf

Link to tweet

[AngryOldDem]

64. "Dismantle secular education".

Breyer nails it. Just as charter schools are dismantling public schools.

Education is under attack here.

I wonder why.

[Samrob]

60. Just wait until an Islamic school applies for funds.

Is it time for a new Constitution Convention??? Well maybe after the Democrats and progressives gain more power with 37 states?

[AngryOldDem]

61. This is bullshit.

I resent my taxes being used to pay for something that was set up as an alternative to the public system.

I have no problem with people wanting that option for their kids. I do have a problem helping them pay for it.

Tax the churches, already.

[Vinca]

63. So much for separation of church and state. I imagine this is just the beginning of the end

of this Supreme Court session's reign of terror. Roe will be gone before the end of the week and the roots in that decision are based on religious beliefs only held by a portion of the population.

[in2herbs]

65. Another comment/questions: why can't the feds announce that no govt money will go for

school funding when it cannot be shown that schools/districts adhere to the division between church and state? And, before funding, why won't the fed govt demand that these religious schools have a proportionate enrollment for special needs children? Can the feds refuse to fund transportation to these schools????

[Initech]

69. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Fuck the Christian Taliban!

[LoisB]

70. Disgusting.

[walkingman]

71. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on promoting religion....period.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

79. Sotomayor accuses conservatives of 'dismantling' church-state separation

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s most outspoken liberal, accused the court’s six-member conservative majority of eroding the barrier between church and state on Tuesday by striking down a Maine policy that barred religious schools from receiving taxpayer-funded tuition aid.

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Sotomayor wrote, dissenting from the 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines.

“n just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine,” she added, “shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

-snip-

Sotomayor also joined in part a separate dissent written by fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, whose opinion was joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal member.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sotomayor-accuses-conservatives-of-dismantling-church-state-separation/ar-AAYI1ro

[Martin68]

82. That's total bullshit. The government should not be offering financial support to religious

institutions. They can register as a non-profit and try to raise funds from sympathetic donors.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

85. I'm just curious

what happens if Maine ignores the Supreme Court?

[MarcA]

90. That is really a good point. Executives enforce the laws

not courts. Just as Legislatures make laws and not the courts. Of course, it all comes down to what an Executive decides to do and what Voters decide to do about Executives. My main concern is that the Oligarchs want to dismantle government and the Peoples' trust in it so as to end Democracy.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

96. Biden is not Trump. NT

[Retrograde]

98. "Mr. Roberts has made his law

now let him enforce it". Shades of Andrew Jackson - but there is precedent for ignoring Supreme Court judgements.

[Polybius]

99. "but there is precedent for ignoring Supreme Court judgements"

Besides Jackson and possibly Lincoln, who else ignored the SC?

[Retrograde]

120. Don't know

Do birthers count? Or people who try to claim that children of immigrants aren't entitled to birthright citizenship? I can't think of any other presidents who blatantly ignored SC decisions, but I'm not a legal expert

[Polybius]

121. No

They've got to directly defy a new SC order to qualify, like Jackson did.

[LymphocyteLover]

89. Giving exclusive attention to one clause of a constituional amendment while ignoring another clause

is exactly how they treat the 2nd amendment and ignore "well-regulated militia"

[KPN]

91. So would the reverse also be true? That is, if a State withheld public funding from a public school

that would or did not promote and provide religious instruction? I wonder.

[AllyCat]

93. Goddammit!! I'm sick of my tax money paying for this lunacy!

This Court is a sham. Separation of Church and State my arse!

[Retrograde]

95. I went to a Catholic high school in the 60s

We sort of got aid from the local school districts: they supplied textbooks for Regents-approved courses. So we got math, science, history, language, and English texts, but had to pay for textbooks for religious instruction and bible studies. Plus, we paid tuition - no help from the state there. And we had to take the state-wide Regents tests at the end of the year.

Somehow, I think this ruling gives religious schools a lot more leeway in what they can teach and how they teach it.

[keithbvadu2]

100. Then the religious schools must accept all students who apply to the same degree that public schools

Then the religious schools must accept all students who apply to the same degree that public schools must accept them.

[melm00se]

104. This is another situation

where the state started a program and then discriminated against a religious entity.

The program was set up:

"if an SAU (School Administrative Unit) neither operates its own public secondary school nor contracts with a particular public or private school for the education of its school-age children, the SAU must “pay the tuition . . at the public school or the approved private school of the
parent’s choice at which the student is accepted.”

If the State refuses to "approve" a private school who meets all the State's requirements save religious affiliation and is denied funding, that is, quite simply, discrimination.

Ask yourself what if the State denied approval due to the school's racial, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry (or any other protected class) affiliation and ask yourself how you would come down on that situation.

[867-5309.]

105. So a charter school in Michigan, for example, could be a religious school?

If I understand this correctly.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

122. Or, a religious school in Michigan could be a charter school.

Public school money could be funneled to pay for parochial schools, or Muslim schools. Seems like an obvious decision, with seven Catholics on the Supreme Court (1 dissenting).

[bucolic_frolic]

106. So will they lose tax exempt status, and can Atheists and Druids attend these Christian schools?

[turbinetree]

107. Betsy Devos and others of her ilk must be happy as shit about this ruling.....

reminds me of citizens united and the voting rights act....piece here, a piece there and then one day.......poof..... we don't need any stinking laws, we are the court we rule this land who needs a Constitution and Congress......

[cstanleytech]

108. Public money for schools should be restricted to public schools with the only private

school spending should be in the form of loans for people to attend college for 4 things which are to become a medical doctor, nurse, pharmacist or a public school teacher.

[MontanaMama]

109. If religious schools are given tax money

then the churches they are linked to must be taxed. Horrible ruling by a court that's out of control.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

123. This gentleman right here is Alton Toussaint Lemon, for whom the famed "Lemon Test" was named.

He died in 2013.

This gentleman right here is Alton Toussaint Lemon, for whom the famed "Lemon Test" was named.

With your indulgence, I offer a brief ⚖️🧵 on him, and the monumentally important Establishment Clause case that he was part of over fifty years ago . . .

Link to tweet

[Samrob]

127. Wouldn't money from Government coffers be promoting religion??

Not giving money does not impinge on the "free exercise" of religion. WTF? You don't need money to exercise your religion. This is the most politically motivated SCOTUS in my lifetime.