JD Vance's Office Corrects WSJ for Peddling Fake News About VP's Stance on...
I'm Shocked USA Today Allowed This Op-ed to Be Published About the Minneapolis...
Remember When Following the Science Was Required Because It Was Settled? Well, the...
Chicago Kids Can’t Read. The Chicago Teachers' Union Can’t Spell.
Consumers’ Research Flags Chubb’s Capitol Hill Push Against Litigation Finance
The Democrats' Pattern of Violence
Conservatives for Property Rights Urge White House Support for Patent Reform
Stop Pretending That Colleges Are Nonprofit Institutions
Did You See the NYT Piece About the Death of Scott Adams?
Hegseth Vows to Slash Pentagon Bureaucracy and Unleash Tech Innovation Alongside Elon Musk
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Men in Women’s Sports...and Hoo Boy
Federal Reserve Chairman ‘Ignored’ DOJ, Pirro Says, Necessitating Criminal Probe
Minnesota House Moves to Impeach Tim Walz
This Explosive New Ad Eviscerates Roy Cooper for Putting Illegals Behind the Wheel
The GOP Is Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership
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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement