Supreme Court: Government can’t deny aid to Religious Schools

Cocksucker.

So I now have to send my tax dollars to Muslim and Fundie schools? Can this be real?

SCOTUS says yes

Well I hope the Satan worshipers are listening, the Supreme Court just paved the way for The School of Satan.

and Muslim madrasas on the taxpayer dime.

Betsy DeVos just had an orgasm

SCOTUS: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."

“ Montana’s interest in creating greater separation of church and State than the Federal Constitution requires “cannot qual- ify as compelling” in the face of the infringement of free exercise here. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___. The Department’s argument that the no-aid provision actually promotes religious freedom is unavailing because an infringement of First Amendment rights cannot be justi- fied by a State’s alternative view that the infringement advances reli- gious liberty. The Department’s argument is especially unconvincing because the infringement here broadly burdens not only religious schools but also the families whose children attend them. The Depart- ment suggests that the no-aid provision safeguards public education by ensuring that government support is not diverted to private schools, but that interest does not justify a no-aid provision that requires only religious private schools to bear its weight. “

In the 5 to 4 world we live in, Justice Roberts is now a God. And sometimes God giveth, and sometimes God taketh away.

“ Here, the parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is per- missible under the Establishment Clause. Nor could they. We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. See, e.g., Locke, 540 U. S., at 719; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 839 (1995). See also Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (noting the par- ties’ agreement that the Establishment Clause was not vio- lated by including churches in a playground resurfacing program). Any Establishment Clause objection to the schol- arship program here is particularly unavailing because the government support makes its way to religious schools only as a result of Montanans independently choosing to spend their scholarships at such schools. See Locke, 540 U. S., at 719; Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 649–653 (2002).”

In the founding era and the early 19th century, governments provided financial support to private schools, including denominational ones. “Far from prohibiting such support, the early state constitutions and statutes actively encouraged this policy.” L. Jorgenson, The State and the Non-Public School, 1825–1925, p. 4 (1987); e.g., R. Gabel, Public Funds for Church and Private Schools 210, 217–218, 221, 241–243 (1937); C. Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1760– 1860, pp. 166–167 (1983). Local governments provided grants to private schools, including religious ones, for the education of the poor. M. McConnell, et al., Religion and the Constitution 318–319 (4th ed. 2016). Even States with bans on government-supported clergy, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, provided various forms of aid to religious schools. See Kaestle, supra, at 166–167; Gabel, supra, at 215–218, 241–245, 372–374; cf. Locke, 540 U. S., at 723. Early federal aid (often land grants) went to reli- gious schools. McConnell, supra, at 319. Congress provided support to denominational schools in the District of Colum- bia until 1848, ibid., and Congress paid churches to run schools for American Indians through the end of the 19th century, see Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U. S. 50, 78 (1908); Gabel, supra, at 521–523. After the Civil War, Congress spent large sums on education for emancipated freedmen, often by supporting denominational schools in the South through the Freedmen’s Bureau. McConnell, supra, at 323.3 ————

I’m sorry. I can’t equate “not subsidizing” with “infringing.”

Conservatives really fucked this one up good. Most have no idea that this applies to all religions, not just their Christian based faith.

Heads will explode when they see Muslim schools trying to collect on this.

Well, that run of good decisions had to come to an end. Now let's get some more madrassas up and running and States will decide it's time to stop subsidizing private education.

Large Muslim populations in OH and Betsy de V's own MI, where the fundamentalist Christians, greedy for taxpayer dollars, will pitch a fit if any other religions try to cash in.

R13, that is not new. Vouchers have been used to go to Muslim schools for decades.

But the possibility of vouchers going to Islamic schools has hindered expansion of voucher programs in places where Islamic schools are greater in number. Now, it could expand rapid fire.

So what? You give funds to the parents/students. The parents decide what schools to spend it on. Similarly, people receive Social Security money each month. They can send the entire amount to their church or mosque If they want. It’s the citizen’s choice on how to spend the benefit

Yes, SCOTUS is thinking only of Christian schools. Now schools based in every religion will be asking for funds.

Glad to know SCOTUS is allowing tax payers to fund the next terrorist.

If religious schools want tax money, they should accept everyone and start paying taxes.

When religious schools deny gays entry, why should we help pay for them?

Yeah! Tax-supported pedophilia!

As long as the SCOTUS keeps finding in favor of more liberal causes I'm okay with a conservative win or two, as long as they're not anything that will cause too much trouble.

If I read the Court’s opinion correctly, the holding is that tax-funded support must be given to ALL private schools or to NO private schools. One distinction that probably still applies (based on precedent) is that tax-funded support cannot go to ministerial education.

Most states with vouchers already gave them for religious schooling. Montana was an exception

^ Actually, the MT Supreme Court struck down the entire private tuition program, for both religious and secular schools, because of the clause in the MT state constitution that says no public funding for religious schools. Ginsburg points out in her dissent that the MT Supreme Court decision should have resolved the issue because it forced the state to deny tuition to both to avoid both violating the state constitution and engaging in discriminatory practices. Instead, Roberts said the MT Supreme Court should have disregarded the state constitution's no religious funding clause. Then he oddly says states can either choose to fund none or must fund all, but the MT Supreme Court *had already chosen none.*

The judicial activism and states' rights nutters are predictably silent about this one.

Thank you for the clarification, R25. I didn’t read RBG’s dissent. Frankly, I thought Roberts’s opinion sounded like a kind of squirrelly way for him to throw a bone to the Christian Right wing - even if they can’t/don’t/won’t understand it is not a “win”.

The Supreme Court is categorically wrong. The government only CAN, but MUST deny aid to religious schools.

In light of this ridiculous ruling, I suggest we just ban all private schools, period. Religious or otherwise. Eliminate them all Period.

It makes no sense that we have to pay taxes to allow religious schools to teach their fantasy fiction

R27, based on this decision, SCOTUS would find a way to say banning all private schools is unconstitutional, but then turn around and say you either have to ban all private schools or allow all kinds of private schools. And then remand to let the plebs try and make sense of it.

R27, you couldn’t get support for your purposed ban in any state. Don’t be ludicrous

More broadly, just thinking about how government supports religion (through tax-exempt status, among other ways) makes me livid.

I am sure the conservative members of the SC are smart enough to know that non-Christian schools are in the mix. And there is a freedom hating idiot above who wants to eliminate free choice in schools rather than just advocate for not funding private schools. Stalinists walk among us, people.

Yep, that’s the kind of wild-eyed craziness that makes people recoil from The Left.

Is it libertarian dogma that opposition to school vouchers amounts to Stalinism? Diane Ravitch is a Stalinist?

R32, those conservative members are also confident they can find a way to legitimize discrimination against non-Christian religions if/when they really need to. See Employment Division v. Smith. As a fallback, they have the voter suppression they unleashed when they gutted the Voting Rights Act to keep minorities from using the democratic process to get a just result.

Private Schools are the root cause of many of the problems this country faces, from religious indoctrination to inequality and systemic white supremacy.

ALL PRIVATE SCHOOLS SHOULD BE BANNED, PERIOD. Put all that money into public schooling, and require everyone attend public schools, period. Within a generation this country would be doing amazingly better than it is now.

Nope

Yup

You know what's the root of all societal evil, families. They perpetuate intergenerational inequalities in wealth. Plus parents teach children the wrong ideas, like racism. We should abolish families!

The state shouldn't be funding private schools. period.

Shut up, R39.

Why I wouldn't dream of letting my children go to a p-p-public school. They have lice!

Private institutions, like private schools, family, and the churches, should all be dismantled. Only then can the right ideas be quaranteed to be transmitted to everyone! Also people shouldn't be allowed to publish books the state hasn't approved of. And don't get me started on other forms of art and media! I agree with R36!

Not only should they ban private schools entirely, but they should equally fund all schools in the state and not base it on property taxes, but population alone. You take all the property tax allotted to schools, put it all in one giant pot, and then divide it equally to every student in the state. The poorest neighborhood and the richest neighborhood each get the same amount per student each year.

Make it simple : no private school shall receive tax dollars, religious or not.

I don't blame people for sending their kids to private schools because public schooling is garbage, but most of these families are very wealthy. Let them bear the costs.

In NYC Catholic schools often serve Black and Brown children. Not entirely, there are some attended primarily by wealthy students. But the parochial system has provided a leg up for many. I support them.

^^ Let the Vatican and private donations fund these schools.

Well, if they get public money they can't exclude the public, IMO. A lot of these so called private religious schools defacto exclude minorities. But if they're getting public funds they ought to be governed by the same rules that govern public education. The SCOTUS reasoning is so flawed it smells.

In an turn about of sorts, years ago, I recall some ruling that the historically Black colleges could not exclude non African Americans from their schools if they accepted any federal aid or grants.

R49, that's not a ruling it's just the law. HCBUs have to comply with the same laws that any other schools receiving federal funding but they've never had a history of systemic exclusion or discrimination. In fact, several HCBUs have filed lawsuits because the States still deny discriminate against them in funding. Rachel Dolezal tried to sue Howard U claiming they discriminated against her because she's white (this is before she permanently blackfaced herself) but that lawsuit was tossed because it was nonsense.

Yeah, and while arguably private schools that receive government funds should not discriminate, it is unquestionable that religious schools can teach according to their doctrine, beliefs, faith.

R45, maybe public schooling wouldn't be 'garbage' if everyone had to go. The fact that the wealthy and the privileged can "opt out" is part of the problem, and leads to massive funding short-falls.

So no. Private Schools are evil. They're mostly privilege indoctrination camps (religious or not), and they need to be abolished. Right along side private for-profit prisons.

In my town a lot of the whites and Indians opt for charter schools, and the public schools system has to pay for those kids to go to those schools. The whites and Indians don't want to send their kids to school with blacks and latinos. Latinex. It should not be allowed.

Most "charter" schools are a scam. John Oliver did a great expose on them a while back.

R52, you have authoritarian tendencies. Glad your anti-liberty agenda has no chance of being implemented anywhere in the States.

What in the name of God is wrong with this country when public funds are used for schools that pick and choose which kids go there? If parents want to pay for a private school, fine. "Charter schools," as many besides John Oliver have documented, are scams and money pits (with a very few exceptions). Fund public education!

This makes my head explode knowing we send 32 billion in our tax dollars in foreign aid to Israel who funds education for all children and the private schools are for the poorer students.

The problem is not that religious schools must be treated (state granted benefits-wise) as all other private schools. The problem is that government is attempting to fund private schools at all. There’s no problem with parents sending their kids to a private school (I went to private schools my whole education). However, parents who choose to do so should not expect to get a break from government for their choice.

R55, quite the opposite. Most authoritarian tendencies are instilled by private schools, and there's nothing more authoritarian than private for-profit prisons.

[quote]There’s no problem with parents sending their kids to a private school (I went to private schools my whole education).

Yes. There is. You're in denial of the obvious fact, because you admittedly benefited from this exclusive privileged private schooling. Fuck off.

Getting rid of private schools wouldn’t make shitty public schools any better. Schools are local. Rich communities have good schools, poor communities don’t. Private schools and parochial schools usually make some effort to recruit and educate students who aren’t from wealthy or upper middle class families. Public schools in rich neighborhoods do not (there are occasional exceptions when they will bring a kid from outside the area to be hosted by a local family. I think that’s kind of a weird dynamic for the kid, but it’s voluntary).

It may bug you that your tax dollars are going towards educating kids at private schools, but more tax dollars are spent per pupil at public schools. So even if private schools are subsidized, it’s costing you less than if those kids were in public school. Lots of school districts in the NYC suburbs pay for busses for the kids who go to private school. It’s in the district’s interest because transportation costs less than actually having an extra kid in the public schools.

[quote]Getting rid of private schools wouldn’t make shitty public schools any better. Schools are local. Rich communities have good schools, poor communities don’t.

I can't figure out if you're stupid or just lack imagination.

Getting rid of private schools is a prerequisite to fixing our public school system. We ALSO need to fix the way schools are funded. For example, instead of local property taxes paying for each neighborhood school (which causes exactly the problem you mentioned), throw all property taxes into the same pot, and divide up by a formula that takes into account per-capita student populations as well as base needs (so low-density areas aren't left hanging). And increase taxes on the wealthy... so that all that money that USED to go to private schools now goes to the public schools their kids will have no choice but to attend.

NO religious indoctrination. Uniform scholastic standards. Emphasis on science, logic, reasoning, life-skills, critical thinking, and history.

It may not be a perfect idea, but it's heads-and-shoulders better than what we have today.

And it’s an idea that has no Political chance of becoming reality in the US.

Well, then, R63, it stands the same chance that gay marriage stood a couple decades ago.

No, gay marriage increases freedom without substantially taking anything away from people who already had freedom. You propose taking away something from a huge number of people in order to purportedly make society in general more equitable or better. Purportedly. Not gonna happen

"What in the name of God is wrong with this country..."

"God" is what's wrong with this country. You're going to die and rot like everything else on this planet. You aren't going anywhere.