The Institute for Justice--one of the outfits fighting hardest for education reform in this country--says this week's Supreme Court decision on school choice "ranks among the most important education reform decisions in half a century." And now the leveraging of this decision begins.
Let's hope the Institute for Justice is right.
Tuesday had all the makings of being a good day for those who work to reform education in this country. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a tax incentive plan in Montana could put the money into private religious schools. It was a long and winding road to get here.
Back in 2015, the legislature in Montana provided a dollar-for-dollar tax credit (up to a smallish $150) for those taxpayers who donated to scholarship programs for low-income families. Only those with a vested interest in the status miserable quo could oppose such a thing. And they did.
The problem, according to some, is when those scholarship programs go to private religious schools. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution didn't allow such things. But instead of saying the money had to go to secular schools only, the court struck down the entire tax program. That'll teach reformers.
The Institute for Justice brought the legal challenge to the nation's top court on behalf of a single mom in Montana who sends her kids to a Christian school.
"A state need not subsidize private education," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "But once it decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools because they are religious." The tax credit created by the state must stand as designed.
Unfortunately, it was not a unanimous agreement, or a unanimous decision. It was only 5 to 4. And those on the court who dissented really had to stretch to do so. Madam Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that because the state Supreme Court back in Montana had killed the entire program, it did not discriminate. And the state court's "judgment put all private school parents in the same boat--this Court had no occasion to address the matter."
Very nice. You might have to be a United States Supreme Court justice with years of legal experience to make that stretch without pulling a muscle.
A few lines from NPR's story: "Regardless of their origins, experts on both sides of the issue agreed that the practical effect of Tuesday's decision is to neuter these state constitutional provisions which, until now, have limited state aid to religious schools to one degree or another. Francisco Negron, chief legal officer for the National School Boards Association, said that these provisions are 'near death.'"
Let's hope so. But it seems anytime there's a 5-to-4 ruling, the matter isn't completely closed. Which is why these nominee battles for positions on the Supreme Court are so important. And why they affect so many Americans. What a country.
Editorial