海角大神

So much of Amy Carson鈥檚 life in rural Maine has centered around the small Evangelical school she attended nearly 30 years ago.聽

She met her husband, David, there when she was in eighth grade, and both of them had siblings there as well. Some family members used to teach at the conservative 海角大神 school, and their daughter Olivia, a recent graduate, attended from kindergarten through high school.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a small school, it鈥檚 college prep education, it鈥檚 close-knit, so everybody knows everybody,鈥� says Ms. Carson, who lives with her family in Glenburn, Maine, a town of about 4,500 residents in a district that doesn鈥檛 have a public high school. She says it鈥檚 always been important for her family to be part of a community that instills the beliefs and biblical worldview they share at home.

Like the Carsons, the families of nearly 5,000 of Maine鈥檚 180,000 students live in school districts in which the state does not operate a public secondary school. In order to provide these students with a free public education, as the state constitution requires, Maine offers families a taxpayer-funded tuition assistance program, which allows them to send their children to a public聽school outside their district or聽an聽approved private school.

Olivia鈥檚 parents could have used the assistance to send her to one of eight high schools, three of which were private, Ms. Carson recalls. But their alma mater, , does not qualify for the tuition assistance program, since the state excludes 鈥渟ectarian鈥� schools that inculcate students with a particular faith tradition.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in their namesake case, Carson v. Makin, in which Ms. Carson and her husband joined other Maine families to sue the state鈥檚 Department of Education. They argue that by excluding religious schools like Bangor, the state of Maine violated the United States Constitution, unfairly discriminating against religious parents like them.聽

The case is part of what has been a series of Supreme Court decisions over the past few decades that have, in general, permitted more and more public funds to flow to religious schools via voucher programs or even some forms of direct aid to religious institutions.

鈥淭he really big-picture view is that there has been this evolution ... from the idea that the religion clauses, and particularly the establishment clause of the First Amendment, prevented government from giving direct financial assistance to sectarian religious entities,鈥� says Jessie Hill, 聽of law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.聽

鈥淭hat was kind of a bedrock principle before, but it has slowly evolved toward an idea that not only is it permissible for direct financial aid to flow to these institutions, but it might even be required in some circumstances,鈥� Professor Hill says.

Behind these cases, however, lurks a larger question about the nature of American pluralism in the modern era. For those who maintain traditional religious views of marriage and human sexuality, they believe their sincerely held religious beliefs should continue to be protected from certain nondiscrimination laws in order for them to express their faith freely.聽

At the same time, many religious institutions and people of faith have battled to be treated like any other group, able to participate fully in public benefit programs 鈥� like Maine鈥檚 tuition assistance program.

鈥淎t some level pluralism demands that we tolerate views that we don鈥檛 like. A lot of religions have views that I disagree with, and I鈥檓 able, I hope, to accept that,鈥� says Nicole Stelle Garnett, of law at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. 鈥淏ut should these religious schools, or religious entities more broadly, be permitted to hold views that are not popular? I鈥檓 a Catholic, so I鈥檓 sensitive to this, because certainly my church has long held views that were considered antithetical to American democracy.鈥�

Indeed, the origins of so-called Blaine Amendments in many state constitutions were rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry, scholars point out, and designed to keep public funds away from the denomination鈥檚 growing network of schools, which often served the nation鈥檚 poor people.

From Everson v. Board of Education to today

In 1947, the Supreme Court articulated what was understood as a kind of bedrock principle, that 鈥渘o tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.鈥� The case, , in some ways affirmed the Jeffersonian interpretation of the establishment clause as a 鈥渨all of separation鈥� between church and state.

In a 5-to-4 decision in 2002, however, the nation鈥檚 high court declared in that an Ohio voucher program did not violate this principle because tax funds were not distributed to support a religious establishment, but the free choices of parents 鈥� a kind of constitutional circuit breaker.聽

鈥淲hen you鈥檙e dealing with a program like [Maine鈥檚] that provides aid to individuals and provides them with a private choice over where to use that aid, the Supreme Court has made it clear, this severs that link between church and state, and therefore a program like this one is unquestionably constitutional under the establishment clause, even if it includes religious options,鈥� says Michael Bindas, for the Institute for Justice and lead counsel for the Carson case before the Supreme Court Wednesday.

In 2004, however, the Supreme Court suggested that there was a difference between public funds directed toward schools with a religious 鈥渟tatus鈥� and programs with an explicit religious 鈥渦se.鈥� In , the high court upheld a state scholarship program in Washington that excluded those studying theology. In 2017, the Supreme Court in employed this use-versus-status distinction to declare that the state of Missouri violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment when it used its Blaine Amendment to exclude a church that applied for a public grant to resurface its playground.聽

Mr. Bindas was also part of the legal team who argued for the plaintiffs in 2020鈥檚 Supreme Court decision in , in which the Supreme Court said a state could not exclude religious families from educational choice programs that allowed for private options.聽

The Constitution 鈥渃ondemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them,鈥� Chief Justice John Roberts for another 5-to-4 majority. 鈥淭hey are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana鈥檚] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand. ... 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.鈥�

In the Carson case, however, Mr. Bindas will tell the court that the status-use distinction is constitutionally irrelevant. 鈥淲hat we鈥檙e arguing in this case is that you can call it discrimination based on religious use if you want, or call it discrimination based on status,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut at the end of the day, it鈥檚 discrimination based on religion.鈥�

A federal appeals court upheld Maine鈥檚 exclusion of sectarian schools, in many ways relying on the distinction between religious status and religious use. And the state of Maine argues that it is not impinging on the free exercise of religion by denying subsidies for a sectarian religious education.聽聽

鈥淩eligious schools can and do advance their own religion to the exclusion of all others, discriminate in both the teachers they employ and the students they admit, and teach religious views inimical to what is taught in public schools,鈥� Aaron Frey, Maine鈥檚 attorney general, said in a public statement this year. 鈥淧arents are free to send their children to such schools if they choose, but not with public dollars.鈥�

Ms. Carson says the exclusion of conservative 海角大神 schools like Bangor, which has been so integral to the life of her family, hurts those who want to live their faith as freely as anyone else in Maine. They鈥檝e known 鈥渇amilies who were having a really hard time, or had to pull their kids when they got to high school, because ... they couldn鈥檛 justify anymore paying when the town would pay for it for them to go to a different school.鈥�

What do states need to pay for?

In its brief, the state of Maine argues that the religious worldviews of the schools in question include policies that exclude LGBTQ students and employees, as well as those from other religions in many cases.

鈥淲e鈥檙e looking at potentially another wrecking ball to the wall of separation between church and state,鈥� Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, . 鈥淭he fundamental notion that none of us should be required to pay for other people鈥檚 practice of religion is about as basic as it gets, and yet we鈥檙e seeing, in these education contexts, that notion flipped on its head.鈥�

Indeed, a number of legal scholars believe there may be a host of implications for allowing public funds to subsidize sectarian schools as these cases continue to evolve.聽

鈥淭he end game may very well be that the government has to in fact fund private religious schools if it is also funding public schools,鈥� says Professor Hill at Case Western Reserve University. 鈥淭hat principle is lurking in there, that private schools should be entitled to the same public money to the same extent as public schools.鈥�