Media coverage of and commentary on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Seal of SCOTUS.png
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Media coverage and commentary
U.S. Supreme Court 2019-2020 term
Blaine Amendment (U.S. Constitution)
Blaine amendments in state constitutions
School choice on the ballot
Education on the ballot

Click here to return to the article on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

This page includes the following:

To submit arguments, commentary, or media coverage for inclusion on this page, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Responses and commentary on the ruling

Supported the ruling

Below is a selection of quotes from those supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

Scroll to see all featured quotes.
  • The Trump Administration: "We celebrate today’s Supreme Court decision on religious schools, which removes one of the biggest obstacles to better educational opportunities for all children. States may no longer hide behind rules motivated by insidious bias against Catholics, known as Blaine Amendments, to exclude religious schools from public benefits. Laws that condition public benefits, like need-based academic scholarships, on religious status demonstrate state-sanctioned hostility to religion, pressure people and institutions to censor their religious views, and stigmatize disfavored religions. The Trump Administration believes that school choice is a civil rights issue, and that no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing school. President Donald J. Trump will fight for school choice, and he will always defend our first freedom: the free exercise of religion."[1]
  • Education Secretary Betsy DeVos: "Today’s decision is a historic victory for America’s students and all those who believe in fundamental fairness and freedom. Each and every student needs the freedom to find their education fit, and today the Highest Court in the Land has protected that right by ensuring that families can use taxpayer funds to choose schools that match their values and educational goals, including faith-based schools. I applaud the Court’s decision to assign a manifestation of the 'last acceptable prejudice' to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Montana and other states should be very clear about this historic decision: your bigoted Blaine Amendments and other restrictions like them are unconstitutional, dead, and buried. Too many students have been discriminated against based on their faith and have been forced to stay in schools that don’t match their values. This decision represents a turning point in the sad and static history of American education, and it will spark a new beginning of education that focuses first on students and their needs. I’m calling on all states to now seize the extraordinary opportunity to expand all education options at all schools to every single student in America."[2]
  • Institute for Justice attorneys:
    • Tim Keller said, “Policymakers nationwide now have the freedom to enact school choice programs that will empower parents to make important educational decisions for their children.”[3]
    • Dick Komer said, "The legal impediments to effective school choice programs are now removed, and it's up to state legislatures now to move forward."[4]
  • John Schilling, president of the American Federation for Children: "What we would like to see is state policymakers really step up to the plate here and expand [...] school choice programs, and to enact it in the 24 states that don't have these programs."[4]
  • Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell: "When you have a state where ... a significant minority of parents are using private schools, they're going to be voting against increasing taxes for public education. But if they are able to share in the education pot, they may move to supporters of greater aid to education."[4]

Opposed the ruling

Below is a selection of quotes from those opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

Scroll to see all featured quotes.
  • Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers: "Never in more than two centuries of American history has the free exercise clause of the First Amendment been wielded as a weapon to defund and dismantle public education. It will hurt both the 90 percent of students who attend neighborhood public schools, by siphoning off needed funds, and, in the long term, those who attend religious schools by curtailing their freedom with the accountability that comes with tax dollars."[5]
    • Weingarten also said, "The court's narrow conservative majority joined with Donald Trump, [Education Secretary and 'school choice' proponent] Betsy DeVos, and other wealthy donors and special interests to attack public education and turn the First Amendment on its head [...] financial backers of this case will now use it to open the floodgates to litigation across the country."[5]
  • Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association: "An extreme Supreme Court just joined the far-right effort to undermine one of our country's most cherished democratic institutions: public education."[6]
  • Anna Maria Chavez, executive director and CEO of the National School Boards Association: "Public schools in every community across the country face unparalleled financial challenges, and the High Court’s decision will further exacerbate the pressure on public schools to educate schoolchildren as they work to reopen safely in the fall. Indeed, the Court’s decision has opened the door to the harmful redirection of scarce public dollars away from local public schools, and it invites both the entanglement with and potential regulation of religious instruction. It also emboldens the policymakers that are carrying out a campaign to undermine public schools."[7]
  • Alicia Priest, president of the Oklahoma Education Association: "The Supreme Court's radical ruling in the Espinoza case furthers the schemes of Betsy DeVos and others to defund public education. Just at a time when public schools are grappling with devastating budget shortfalls due to the coronavirus pandemic, the conservative court joined the far-right and became complicit in the privatization efforts of those seeking to profit from public goods and services. This is fundamentally wrong."[8]
  • Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: "This decision undermines true religious freedom and is the latest in a disturbing line of Supreme Court cases attacking the very foundations of the separation of church and state. In the past, the court used to guard against government-funded religion. Today, the court has not only allowed, but actually required taxpayers to underwrite religious education."[9]
  • Alex Rate, legal director of the ACLU of Montana: "The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a well-reasoned opinion by the Montana Supreme Court recognizing that the framers of Montana’s constitution were committed to ensuring that public education remains free from religious entanglement. Today’s decision ignores that commitment."[9]
  • Leslie C. Griffin, the William S. Boyd professor of law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas: "Other Christians also briefed in favor of Montana. Nonetheless, Jews, other Christians and minority religions are now expected to pay for programs that teach religious ideals with which they disagree. They are especially worried that their tax dollars will now pay for schools that do not protect LGBTQ rights."[10]

Post-ruling media coverage

Click the link in the "Title" column of the charts below to access the article.

Post-ruling media coverage
Publisher Author Title Date
Portland Press Herald Arif Panju and Daryl James Commentary: End discrimination in Maine against religious school families July 27, 2021
Concord Monitor Eileen O'Grady Families ready to use tax dollars at religious schools July 17, 2021
The College Fix Jonathan McGee Ohio school districts ready for lawsuit against newly expanded school choice law July 15, 2021
Reason.com Ella Lubell New Hampshire School Choice Program Opens to Religious Schools July 14, 2021
Reason.com J.D. Tuccille School Choice Is the Answer to Education Disputes July 9, 2021
The 74 Linda Jacobson As Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Catholic Adoption Agency and Moves Further to Protect Freedom of Religion, Possible Implications for Vouchers and Religious Schools June 18, 2021
VTDigger Lola Duffort [https://vtdigger.org/2021/06/02/new-ruling-says-public-dollars-can-go-to-religious-schools/ New ruling says public dollars can go to religious schools June 2, 2021
VTDigger Meg Mott Meg Mott: Why one Vermont lesbian is for the protection of religious liberties May 19, 2021
Vermont Biz John McClaughry McClaughry: Three lawsuits that will change Vermont education May 18, 2021
The Josiah Bartlett Center Andrew Cline Legislators vote to include religious schools in town tuitioning law, making law constitutionally compliant May 14, 2021
The Heritage Foundation John Malcolm and Sarah Perry South Carolina Lawsuit Challenges State’s Blaine Amendment Bias Against Religious, Private Schools May 12, 2021
VTDigger Lola Duffort Vermont can’t discriminate against religious schools. But can those schools discriminate against kids? May 5, 2021
Valley News Lola Duffort Ruling tests limits on school vouchers in Vermont January 29, 2021
Saint Albans Messenger Kate Barcellos Experts say decision on Rice Memorial High School student's lawsuit shows federal courts' favor of religious rights January 28, 2021
GBH News Kendra Espinoza Tax Credits, Religious Schools And You January 16, 2021
Education week Mark Walsh Court Backs Religious-School Student’s Participation in Vermont Dual-Enrollment Program January 15, 2021
Newsweek Nicole Stelle Garnett The Supreme Court Opened the Door for Religious Charter Schools December 21, 2020
New Hampshire Union Leader Josie Albertson-Grove Croydon family suing for town to pay Catholic school, arguing state law is unconstitutional September 5, 2020
National Review John Bursch Espinoza Makes First Splash in Appellate Courts August 7, 2020
Education Next Andy Smarick Religious Charter Schools Will Test Limits of Espinoza Decision August 4, 2020
Telegram.com Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass As I See It: Supreme Court protects founders’ concepts of religious liberty, school choice August 3, 2020
SCOTUSBlog Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman Symposium: The unfolding revolution in the jurisprudence of the religion clauses August 6, 2020
Salon Andrea Germanos SCOTUS delivers "seismic shock" ruling on religious schools July 4, 2020
Lancaster Online Alex Geli Will SCOTUS ruling force Pa. to fund religious schools? Not quite, officials say July 2, 2020
Patheos Roger Olson Now I Support Government Funding of Religious Schools (Not) July 2, 2020
News on 6 Chinh Doan SCOTUS Rules Faith-Based Schools Can Receive State-Based Financial Assistance July 1, 2020
Fox News Morgan Phillips Trump calls Supreme Court ruling a 'historic win for families July 1, 2020
The Laurinburg Exchange Lindsay Marchello Supreme Court gives school choice supporters a big win July 1, 2020
The Hill John Bursch US Supreme Court upholds religious liberty, forbids religious discrimination July 1, 2020
NBC News Pete Williams In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court rules states cannot ban public funding for religious schools June 30, 2020
New York Times Adam Liptak Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid June 30, 2020
CNN Ariane de Vogue & Devan Cole Supreme Court opens door to state funding for religious schools June 30, 2020
NPR Nina Totenberg; Brian Naylor Supreme Court: Montana Can't Exclude Religious Schools From Scholarship Program June 30, 2020
The Hill John Kruzel Supreme Court hands win to religious schools June 30, 2020
US News & World Report Lauren Camera The Supreme Court’s Far-Ranging Ruling on School Choice June 30, 2020

Pre-ruling media coverage

Click [show] in the tables below to see pre-ruling coverage of the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case.

Blaine Amendments and state constitutions

Education funding and policy

Past legal precedent

Constitutional clauses

Possible impact

Additional reading

The following list of previously decided Supreme Court cases relate to legal precedents at issue in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The White House, "Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on Religious Schools," June 30, 2020
  2. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Secretary DeVos on Espinoza: Religious Discrimination is Dead," June 30, 2020
  3. ↑ New York Times, "Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid," June 30, 2020
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 NPR, "Supreme Court: Montana Can't Exclude Religious Schools From Scholarship Program," June 30, 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Salon, "SCOTUS delivers "seismic shock" ruling on religious schools," July 4, 2020
  6. ↑ NBC, "In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court rules states cannot ban public funding for religious schools," June 30, 2020
  7. ↑ National School Boards Association, "NSBA Statement in Response to U.S. Supreme Court State Aid to Private School Decision," June 30, 2020
  8. ↑ News on 6, "SCOTUS Rules Faith-Based Schools Can Receive State-Based Financial Assistance," July 1, 2020
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 ACLU, "ACLU COMMENT ON SUPREME COURT RULING IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CASE," June 30, 2020
  10. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Symposium: Religions’ wins are losses," August 4, 2020
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Bruce Baker is a professor in the Rutgers Graduate School of Education‘s department of educational theory, policy and administration. Preston Green is a professor of educational leadership and law at the University of Connecticut and the John and Maria Neag Professor of Urban Education in the university’s Neag School of Education.
  12. ↑ Michael A. Helfand is the associate dean for faculty and research and a professor of law at the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law.
  13. ↑ Jamie Gass is director of the Center for School Reform at Pioneer Institute, based in Boston. Ben DeGrow is director of education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst for the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Jessica Levinson is a professor at Loyola Law School.
  16. ↑ Michael A. Helfand is the associate dean for faculty and research and a professor of law at the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law.
  17. ↑ Vikram David Amar is the dean and Iwan Foundation professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law on the Urbana-Champaign campus. Alan Brownstein is a professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.
  18. ↑ Vikram David Amar is the dean and Iwan Foundation professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law on the Urbana-Champaign campus. Alan Brownstein is a professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_and_commentary_on_Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue&oldid=8747867"