{"id":25,"date":"2022-01-31T05:37:11","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T05:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/?p=25"},"modified":"2022-01-31T06:25:03","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T06:25:03","slug":"espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue-clarified-distinction-between-religious-schools-and-religious-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/2022\/01\/31\/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue-clarified-distinction-between-religious-schools-and-religious-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue clarified distinction between \u2018religious schools\u2019 and \u2018religious use\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Espinoza<\/em> (2020) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled against Montana Department of Revenue that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school\u2019s religious status<\/em> under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Espinoza<\/em> the question was whether a state law that allows for funding for education generally while prohibiting funding for \u2018religious schools\u2019 violates the Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court ruled for Espinoza in a 5-4 majority decision that the state court\u2019s interpretation of the Montana Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution, which protects the free exercise of religion. <\/strong>The Court decided that the application of the Montana Constitution\u2019s \u201cno-aid\u201d provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated <\/em>against \u2018religious schools\u2019 and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Federal Constitution\u2019s Free Exercise Clause which protects people who are religious from being treated unequally, as well as from laws that discriminate based on religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Espinoza<\/em> the Court also made a distinction<\/em> between \u2018religious [status of] schools\u2019 and \u2018religious use\u2019 (i.e.<\/em> religious education or instruction) but it did not resolve whether a state may exclude families and schools based on the \u2018religious use\u2019 to which a student\u2019s aid might be put at a school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previously, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris<\/em> (2002) the Court has decided that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools. However, in Locke v. Davey<\/em> (2004) the Court has ruled that there was nothing “inherently constitutionally suspect” in the denial of Washington public funding for vocational religious instruction, such as a degree in devotional theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, Espinoza<\/em> implies that \u2018religious schools\u2019 cannot be excluded from state funding for private schools. The Espinoza<\/em> decision will likely have significant impact on subsequent rules in the 38 states with Blaine amendments that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Double S – PKAK<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Espinoza (2020) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled against Montana Department of Revenue that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school\u2019s religious status under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.  In Espinoza the question was whether a state law that allows for … Continue reading Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue clarified distinction between \u2018religious schools\u2019 and \u2018religious use\u2019<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus-2022"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25\/revisions\/48"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}