Follow NWPE on:

Subscribe to RSS Feed:

Liberals' mouths drop over White House defense of religious school tuition tax credit
posted by: Cindy Omlin | November 04, 2010, 08:43 PM   


The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a case that involves tax credits and religious education.  A surprising, even shocking, alliance has emerged between the Obama administration and some of the court's most conservative justices.


The case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, brought by a group of taxpayers represented by the ACLU, challenges the 1997 Arizona law that allows taxpayers to donate money toward a variety of private scholarship foundations, rather than paying the same amount to the government through taxes.  The challengers believe this practice sets up a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause because most of the money ends up going to religious schools.

The Arizona law gives residents a State tax credit when they donate to organizations called "School Tuition Organizations,” some of which are run by religiously affiliated schools. Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon and constitutional attorney, writes “Parents are the ones who should be able to make the choice of how to best extend their own teaching mission outside of the home. The family is the first government and the first school house.”  He notes that Arizona has at least 55 School Tuition Organizations which have distributed $50 million to 27,000 needy students to attend 370 private schools in grades K-12.  The schools include religious schools, if the parents so choose.

A major issue in the case regards who has the legal right to bring a challenge.  The Seattle Times reports:

“The issue of standing has emerged as crucial in the continuing dispute over church-state separation. In the past, advocates of church-state separation have sued to object when a city, for example, puts a religious symbol on public property. But in recent years, the court's leading conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, have questioned whether such persons have standing to sue without proof they were injured.”

Because no citizen can prove that "a cent ... of his money goes to fund religion," Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, argued that no one has the legal standing to challenge the law.  Dan Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona, argues, "Arizona taxpayers have an absolute right to challenge a program that diverts much-needed state funds from tax revenue to private religious schools on the basis of religious discrimination.  The state cannot use taxpayer money to support organizations that are not open to children of all faiths."


Benjamin Mann reported that Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that she believes that the donated scholarship money belongs to the state even though it is never actually taxed saying it could be considered “tax money … that private individuals are using.”  Justice Alito, who didn't agree with her reasoning, asserted that her argument would mean that “all (private) money belongs to the government” except the amount it “doesn't take” by taxation.

The case highlights a fact that in the area of education, President Obama is sometimes at odds with the positions of his liberal base.  In this case, he is at odds with the very Supreme Court justices he appointed.

What are your thoughts on this school choice case?  Have your views changed or solidified over the years?

Please comment below.

Comments (0)Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy