Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Public Money for Religious Schools

Sarah and David breeze through a few Supreme Court opinions released Tuesday to focus on ...

By and
102

Sarah and David breeze through a few Supreme Court opinions released Tuesday to focus on United States v. Taylor, and how Maine is more rural than Alaska (go figure). David points out that Carson v. Makin, which held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement in schools violated the Free Exercise Clause, is yet another victory for religious liberty in the U.S. And finally, a casual discussion of toddler yoga, skirt skepticism, and how to have fun at your job.

Show Notes:

–United States v. Taylor

–Carson v. Makin

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (102)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Joshua Foster

    What about the military hiring chaplains?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    AndreaLeane75

    So there's the charter school enforcing the skirt rule and now there's Forney ISD in Texas banning skirts, dresses, hoodies and denim to teach "workplace skills". I foresee lawsuits there.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/06/24/texas-school-dress-code-dresses-skirts/

    Collapse
  3. Andrew

    Guys, please stop cheering all the wordplay these judges are putting in opinions like the one mentioned at the end. Judge Ho worked in a whole Hamilton song in an opinion a few weeks ago. Lauding these kinds of games is clearly only encouraging more of it and it's only pushing the clerks and judges to try and put in more. It's unprofessional and unbecoming for an Article III court to release an opinion written like this. Shame on the judges trying to boost their reputation like this, and shame on the clerks who are just as much, if not more so, at fault. This is foolishness and the federal court system deserves better.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Martin Hernandez

    S&D,
    what’s your take on Prof Eric Segall’s (GA State Univ) view that this decision violates the establishment clause and that there is no originalism in this decision by the court’s most prominent originalists. Link to interview https://youtu.be/3YmCHqiJQB8

    Collapse
  5. Ruth

    Climate change is a "belief system"? In that case, so are thermodynamics, Mendelian genetics, atomic structure, cell theory and the rest of the science curriculum: important theories enjoying broad scientific consensus, though of necessity simplified for young students. I really expected better from this podcast. This reminds me a great deal of the way evolution was handled a generation ago. Must we also give equal time to climate deniers?

    Collapse
  6. James Angelichio

    Brilliant point by Sarah that Climate Change; Transgenderism and CRT, among others, are every bit systems of beliefs as are more traditional deity-based religions.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    LeGrand Northcutt

    With utmost respect and appreciation for the plaintiffs and everyone who is being discriminated against for their faith, I am not convinced that all of the recent cases (since Trinity Lutheran) that promote the free exercise clause over the establishment clause are “wins” for religious liberty in the long run. Regardless of the outcome of the coach Kennedy case, I think that these cases are setting up a regime where the coach Kennedy’s of the world will *always* win, and any pushback will violate the constitution.

    This type of constitutional regime will give religious people undue power and influence in government and civic life that they should not be entitled to, and honest people in government (full disclosure— I am a government lawyer) will have no ability to push back on them, which will almost certainly lead to indoctrination in public schools and, at best, a quashing of other religious views whenever one religion has power and influence that is passively (or actively!) supported by governmental entities. These would be long-term losses for religious liberty.

    If the establishment clause has no teeth, and faithful, religious government officials are forced to condone, tacitly support, and even fund religious activity, extreme people will seek more power and influence within the government and there will be no check against that. Therefore, I believe there is an important constitutionally enshrined difference between discrimination against religion and choosing not to fund religious activity that needs to be protected.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jacob

    Also - David Souter was on the First Circuit Panel in Carson v. Makin.

    It was a star-studded panel - David Souter (by designation), Bruce Selya (designation), and David J. Barron (former AAG of OLC)

    Roberts also characterized the establishment clause as a state interest in disestablishment in Carson v Makin.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Young Riprock

    The pronunciation depends entirely on whether you’re in a res-notice recording state.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Dave T

    I think it is really kind of weird that progressive Americans are all freaking out about this court case, when every other Anglo country has had taxpayer funding for religious schools since forever. We do it in Canada. They do it in the UK, and in Ireland, and in Australia, and all those places are significantly more progressive than the USA. Progressive peeps: this is not the end of the world. It`s not even bad.

    Collapse
Load More