U.S. Supreme Court Takes Decision on State Funding for Religious Schools

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

The landmark Education case before the Supreme Court of the United States could end the decades of wrangling over religious education. Espinosa v Montana Department of Revenue might be a potential watershed moment in public education.

Background

The Supreme Court is to decide whether the release of state funds is possible. This is to help pay tuitions at religious schools. The parents of the religious school students sued for access to the educational choice program. This program provides for a tax credit for tuition help. Therefore, donations to private organizations receive tax credits. These donations help low-income families through scholarships. However, the Constitution prohibits funding religious education and allowance of the funding is only to the secular schools. The provision dates back to 1884. This was to avoid disputes on religious freedoms.

Arguments

The case comes from the state of Montana. It challenges a decision which shut down the program as unconstitutional. There is a provision in its Constitution which prohibits the use of government funding for any religious purposes. Thus, Montana Supreme Court held that all private schools should have equal treatment. These provisions exist in 37 other states too.

The Institute for Justice is representing the Montana families. They argued that it was time to allow funding to religious schools. They require permission to take part in the educational choice program. Moreover, this permission is a decision of the state or the federal circuit where the child resides. Therefore, the denial for participation based on the student’s house is unfair. Eighteen states offer tax credit scholarship programs.

Furthermore, they argued that the amendment penalises parents who choose religious over secular schools. Thus, that amounts to discrimination against their children. Also, it violates their client’s rights to exercise religion and equal protection.

Several Amicus briefs poured in this case. One said that the ruling against Montana would force taxpayers to fund religious discrimination in schools.

The respondents argued that the protection of the status quo must be upheld. Currently, there is no money going to either religious or non-religious schools, and there isn’t any discrimination. It was further said that, prohibiting state funding is protecting religious freedom. Reversal of the Montana amendment would risk the government intervention into religion.

Implications of the Decision

The country has long-standing religious freedom principles. But, over time, the tussle between religion and government has only grown. Thus, this legal battle is a path-breaking one. It must be seen that it requires to strike a balance between state and religion. The principle aim is to keep the state out of religion and to protect the faith of the citizens.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -