Carson v. Makin

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Carson v. Makin
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: December 8, 2021
Decided: June 21, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor (joined as to all but Part I-B) • Elena Kagan; Sonia Sotomayor

Carson v. Makin is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on December 8, 2021.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Maine’s nonsectarian requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violated the Free Exercise Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor as to all but Part I-B, and joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Maine State Legislature created a tuition assistance program to pay for students to attend public or private schools inside or outside of the state, in order to ensure that school-age children receive a free public education. Private schools labeled as sectarian by the state were not approved for funding. In 2018, three sets of parents filed a complaint in U.S. district court against the state, alleging that the program requirement infringed on their First Amendment rights, including the free exercise of religion. The district court entered judgment in favor of the state. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned public education funding and religious education, and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020).
  • The questions presented: "Does a state violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction?"[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.[3] To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In Maine, more than half of the state's 260 school districts did not operate their own high schools. The state legislature created a tuition assistance program to pay for students to attend public or private schools inside or outside of the state, in order to ensure that school-age children receive a free public education, as provided by the state constitution. According to the program's requirements, approved private schools must be nonsectarian, meaning that it is not related to a religious group or organization.[3][4]

    In August 2018, three sets of parents filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging that the tuition assistance program requirement that a private school must be nonsectarian in order to be approved for funding was an infringement of their First Amendment rights. The parents sought to send their children to private Christian schools that were labeled as sectarian by the state, so they did not qualify for funding. The complaint requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The commissioner asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the complaint and moved for dismissal. In April 2019, both parties filed for summary judgment. The district court granted judgment to the commissioner and denied judgment to the plaintiffs.[3][4]

    The parents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in 2019 and arguments were held on January 8, 2020. Two weeks after oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments in the case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), which involved a free exercise challenge related to state funding of public education in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court struck down a state program giving tax credits to those who donated to organizations providing scholarships to private schools because the program conflicted with the state constitution's provision prohibiting state aid to sectarian private schools. On June 30, 2020, SCOTUS ruled that the Montana Supreme Court's decision was both subject to strict scrutiny and could not survive such review under the First Amendment's free exercise clause. Both parties in Carson v. Makin filed letters with the 1st Circuit to state their views of how Espinoza affected the court's ruling in the case. The plaintiffs said that Espinoza accorded with their claim that the state program's nonsectarian requirement violated the free exercise clause. The commissioner stated that, even in light of Espinoza, the district court's ruling rejecting the plaintiff's challenge must be affirmed.[3]

    On October 29, 2020, the 1st Circuit affirmed the District of Maine's judgment, holding:[3]

    “ In conditioning the availability of that assistance on the requirement that recipients use it for educational instruction that is as nonsectarian in content as the free public education that is not directly available to them, Maine transgresses neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause, nor any of the other provisions of the federal Constitution that the plaintiffs invoke. Rather, it permissibly satisfies a commitment, rooted in its own founding charter, to pursue the wholly legitimate end of ensuring the distribution of the benefits of a free public education even to those who happen to live in places that cannot provide it of their own accord.[5] ”


    On February 4, 2021, the parents petitioned the Supreme Court for review. On July 2, 2021, SCOTUS granted review during its October 2021-2022 term.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Does a state violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction?[5] ”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 8, 2021.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 ruling, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Maine’s nonsectarian requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violated the Free Exercise Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor as to all but Part I-B, and joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ 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 question presented is whether this restriction violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.


    ... Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[5]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Breyer

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor as to all but Part I-B, and joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan.

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “ The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second. The majority also fails to recognize the “ ‘play in the joints’ ” between the two Clauses. See Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6). That “play” gives States some degree of legislative leeway. It sometimes allows a State to further antiestablishment interests by withholding aid from religious institutions without violating the Constitution’s protections for the free exercise of religion. In my view, Maine’s nonsectarian requirement falls squarely within the scope of that constitutional leeway. I respectfully dissent.[5] ”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the Court was “lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 27). Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for where this Court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.[5] ”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Additional reading

    The following list of previously decided Supreme Court cases relate to legal precedents at issue in the case.


    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[9] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[10]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Carson v. Makin, decided June 21, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Carson v. Makin: On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The First Circuit," filed February 4, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Carson v. Makin, decided October 29, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 SCOTUSblog, "Justices add one religious-rights case to docket but turn down another," July 2, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 8, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 8, 2021
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    9. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    10. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards

    Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker
    External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald
    Research: Josh Altic
    Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Carson_v._Makin&oldid=9117245"