In the Supreme Court case of Carson v. Makin, a Maine family challenged a state tuition assistance program that wouldn’t aid with tuition for religious schools, instead limiting aid to parents who wished to send their children to private secular or “nonsectarian” schools. The program is available to parents who live in school districts that don’t have high schools.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is a victory for defenders of religious and educational freedom. In fact, in light of a similar ruling in a case two years ago, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, I’m more curious as to why Maine kept such a discriminatory tuition assistance program in place.
“We have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. The ruling is good news for a few reasons.
First, it may warn off state governments tempted toward anti-religious discrimination. Second, this ruling exposes the anti-religious bigotry that often exists in state government law. This often occurs under the guise of nominally innocent programs that repeat the “separation of church and state” mantra as a catch-all justification for their bigotry. Third, this is a win for equality, education, and religious liberty. These ideas should be nonpartisan.
This ruling and ones like it clarify that religious discrimination is common but always unconstitutional. Being happy is not a right. Being liked is not a right. Not getting your feelings hurt is not a right. But true discrimination, when it comes to the First Amendment, is unconstitutional.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
