So, That's How The New York Times Framed the ICE Ambush in Minneapolis...
The Departure of Top DOJ Attorneys Allegedly Over the ICE Shooting in Minneapolis...
Remember When CNN Did Ride-Alongs With ICE? Here's the (D)ifference.
Why This Exchange Between Josh Hawley and a Lib Doctor on Abortion Pills...
Why the FBI Searched a Washington Post Reporter's Home Yesterday
US Military Intervention in Iran Could Be Imminent
Jacob Frey Just Said He Never Incited Violence Against ICE. Here Are Times...
Voters Rejected the ‘Values’ Minneapolis Democrats Hold Dear
Trump Just Gave Minnesota an Ultimatum
St. Paul Teachers Union Orders Members to ‘Pick a Side’ and Walk Out...
Cea Weaver Identifies the 'Huge Problem' Obstructing Her Communist Housing Agenda, and Gue...
Here’s How Jasmine Crockett Handled Tough Questions About Her Double Standard
Oh, Wittle Zohran Got So Mad Did He
White House Tells Walz to 'Resign in Disgrace' After Anti-ICE Meltdown
Iran Past, Present, and Future: A Conversation With Marziyeh Amirizadeh, Part 2
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Hands Down Huge Victory on School Choice

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday morning that government tuition assistance programs cannot discriminate against religious schools. The opinion is from Carson v. Makin, a case out of Maine. 

Advertisement

"Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own. Under the program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend—public or private—and the school district transmits payments to that school to help defray the costs of tuition. Most private schools are eligible to receive the payments, so long as they are 'nonsectarian,'" the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, states. "The question presented is whether this restriction violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."

"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against 'indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions,'" the opinion states. "A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."

Advertisement

The ruling is being celebrated as a win for school choice.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos