Courts rule in favor of religious schools receiving govt aide

[BmorePat87]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/883074890/supreme-court-montana-cant-exclude-religious-schools-from-scholarship-program


SCOTUS ruled in favor of a group of parents from Montana sued the state for not allowing them to access a $500 tax credit for private schools because their kids go to a religious school.

Montana's highest court actually struck the law down and Montana no longer funds any private schools with the program, but for some reason SCOTUS still made a decision despite it being moot, setting a precedent that can open up federal funds for religious schools across the country.

Quote:Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rebutted Roberts' argument in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Ginsburg argued that because the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program entirely, it did not discriminate against students attending religious schools at all, writing that because the state court's "judgment put all private school parents in the same boat—this Court had no occasion to address the matter."

Breyer warned of the lack of limitations in the ruling and the way it could snowball, something that some conservative judges seem eager to make happen.

Gorsuch pushed for the decision to go further while Alito blasted state amendments that ban any government funding from going to religious institutions, calling them tools to discriminate against Catholics (based on the fact that the original failed constitutional amendment in the 1800's was anti Catholic while ignoring that these modern laws were created to protect religious freedom from govt limitations).

Concern now exists moving forward over what kind of litigation will occur when states try to qualify aide by requiring recipients to not discriminate against staff and students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

[*michaelsean*]

ROBERTS SUCKS (On this thread.)

[fredtoast]

I don't agree with state funding going to private schools, but if states allow it then they should allow it to go to any private school including religious ones.  Especially since a large majority of private schools are supported churches.

[Benton]

(06-30-2020, 07:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't agree with state funding going to private schools, but if states allow it then they should allow it to go to any private school including religious ones.  Especially since a large majority of private schools are supported churches.

Pretty much my thoughts.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 07:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't agree with state funding going to private schools, but if states allow it then they should allow it to go to any private school including religious ones.  Especially since a large majority of private schools are supported churches.

(06-30-2020, 08:12 PM)Benton Wrote: Pretty much my thoughts.

agreed, but the law no longer existed by the time the court heard arguments for it. Should states be allowed to bar funding to religious schools that openly discriminate under the guise of religious freedom? That's the concern that arises from this, especially given some of the arguments in the concurrent opinions. 

[BrownAssClown]

I also don't like public funds for private institutions, but I have a question. The supreme court voted that private, including religious schools can receive public funding correct? Does that mean ALL religious schools including Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu schools (just to name a few) can get public funds or does it mean only Christian schools are eligible like those good folks up in Montana intended?

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 09:04 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: I also don't like pubic funds for private institutions, but I have a question. The supreme court voted that private, including religious schools can receive public funding correct? Does that mean ALL religious schools including Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu schools (just to name a few) can get public funds or does it mean only Christian schools are eligible like those good folks up in Montana intended?

Within the context of this decision, it just means at the very least that if a state offers funding to private schools, they have to offer it to all private schools, including religious schools. 

[SunsetBengal]

As a Conservative, it might surprise a few of you to find that I do not agree with this decision, at all. Private schools have a fundamental advantage, they charge tuition. Public education budget is, and should be for public schools.

[Benton]

(06-30-2020, 08:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: agreed, but the law no longer existed by the time the court heard arguments for it. Should states be allowed to bar funding to religious schools that openly discriminate under the guise of religious freedom? That's the concern that arises from this, especially given some of the arguments in the concurrent opinions. 

If it's a (got example) issue of an all Catholic school requiring students to be Catholic, I'm ok with that... I just don't think they should get any public funding.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 09:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As a Conservative, it might surprise a few of you to find that I do not agree with this decision, at all.  Private schools have a fundamental advantage, they charge tuition.  Public education budget is, and should be for public schools.

just to clarify, they didn't say private schools had to receive funding, they just said that if the state does allow private schools to receive funding then they have to allow all private schools to be eligible for that funding regardless of religious affiliation. 

I think your justification for no funding, though, is solid.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2020, 09:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Within the context of this decision, it just means at the very least that if a state offers funding to private schools, they have to offer it to all private schools, including religious schools. 

Sounds fair. 

[GMDino]

I went to Catholic school and sent both of our kids there for awhile and I never understood why tax money should go to them when the churches don't pay taxes.

Or to private schools charging tuition on top of it.

But I am currently in the process of starting a religion and a school just to see if I can get some tax money to support it.  

[Belsnickel]

So, first, if this case was rendered moot then this ruling should never have occurred. It sets a bad precedent when they do this. It also just shows how much the SCOTUS is a political entity when they are unwilling to make a decision on a moot case (see the NY firearms case) in one instance, but willing to in another, likely because there is an agenda at play for the justices. Roberts is the swing vote on these sorts of things, and I have no doubt that with the NY case he was trying to not drag SCOTUS into the quagmire, while with this one his ideology took control because it is a less controversial case. By rendering a decision on a moot case, this is judicial activism.

As for the decision itself, I don't disagree. First, though, we need to think about what state funds end up going to private schools. It isn't just money going directly to these schools, it also includes tuition assistance money, or things that crop up in programs like school choice/voucher programs. That is state money that is being used. So if a state were to institute these sorts of policies, it would limit the ability for students to choose the school they would go to with those funds. Now, I personally think school choice/voucher programs are misguided efforts in education reform, but that is a whole other conversation.