WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of three low-income Montana mothers today, reviving a state tax-credit program designed to generate private scholarships for Montana students to attend private schools of their choice. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the scholarship program, claiming that it would violate the state’s Blaine Amendment, an archaic anti-religious law that forbids any direct or indirect aid to schools owned or operated by a “church, sect, or denomination.” Today, the Supreme Court overturned the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling and made it clear that children in Montana cannot be stripped of their right to participate in a scholarship program simply because they attend religious schools.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court said that the Blaine Amendments were “born of bigotry” and that the “no-aid provisions of the 19th century hardly evince a tradition that should inform our understanding of the Free Exercise Clause.” The Court also said that “exclusion [of religious schools] from the scholarship program here is ‘odious to our Constitution’ and ‘cannot stand.’”

“It was high time for the Blaine Amendments to bite the dust,” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “Our Constitution requires equal treatment for religious people and institutions. Relying on century-old state laws designed to target Catholics to exclude all people of faith was legally, constitutionally, and morally wrong. The Court was right to kick the Blaine Amendments to the curb.”

In 2015, the Montana state legislature passed the Montana Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which allows Montanans a tax credit for $150 of their contributions to privately-run scholarship programs. However, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the whole program, citing the state’s Blaine Amendment, even though only some of the recipients used their scholarships at religious schools. The decision to strike down the scholarship program stood in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, which said that religious groups cannot be barred from participating in widely available public programs simply because they are religious.  

In September 2019, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court in support of three low-income parents, arguing that religious organizations cannot be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to widely available public benefit programs. Justice Alito repeatedly referred to Becket’s brief in his concurring opinion, which detailed the history of discrimination behind the Blaine Amendments. Justice Alito reproduced one of the famous Thomas Nast cartoons that Becket had included in its brief to the Court as an example of anti-Catholic bigotry. Today’s decision goes beyond the Trinity Lutheran decision, extending non-discrimination protections to religious schools.

“Blaine Amendments are a nasty part of our nation’s history, representing the worst kind of religious bigotry from our past,” said Verm. “The Supreme Court was right to recognize the unconstitutionality of Montana’s Blaine Amendment and we are confident that this ruling will rid our country of these pernicious laws.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – New Mexico kids won equal access to quality educational resources today, regardless of where they go to school. In Moses v. Ruszkowski, a group of activists sued the State of New Mexico to end a textbook program designed to ensure all students receive a quality education. The New Mexico Supreme Court’s ruling says students can’t be denied state-approved textbooks and other learning materials simply because they attend a religiously affiliated school. The decision comes after the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.  

New Mexico is ranked lowest of all 50 states in terms of education. The textbook lending program seeks to lift the state’s literacy levels by ensuring that all children have equal access to quality textbooks. The program especially benefits low-income and minority students living in rural areas.  But in 2012, activists sued the state arguing that the textbook lending program violates the state constitution because students at religiously affiliated schools can participate on equal footing with all other students. Today’s court ruling rejects the activists’ arguments, stating, “The textbook loan program furthers New Mexico’s legitimate public interest in promoting education and eliminating illiteracy.” 

“In shutting the book on religious discrimination, the New Mexico Supreme Court has opened access to quality textbooks for all students,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which is defending the New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools (NMANS) and the state’s textbook program. “All kids deserve an education free from discrimination.”

The lawsuit relied on a discriminatory 19th century state law—called a Blaine Amendment—that has been used in New Mexico and across the country to keep religious organizations from participating in government programs on the same terms as everyone else. For example, activists have used Blaine Amendments to try to stop children with disabilities from attending schools that best meet their needs, to prevent schools from making their playgrounds safer, to stop food kitchens from helping the poor, and to close service providers that help former prisoners successfully reintegrate into society. The Court acknowledged the Blaine Amendments’ malicious history, noting that “New Mexico was caught up in the nationwide movement to eliminate Catholic influence from the school system.”  

“New Mexico’s kids are better off today because the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected 19th Century religious discrimination,” said John Foreman, state director of the New Mexico Association of Non-public Schools.

Both the trial court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the textbook lending program, but in 2015 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional based on the Blaine Amendment. In 2017 Becket appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following a 7-2 ruling in Trinity Lutheran, a similar case involving Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, the Supreme Court ordered the New Mexico Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on the textbook lending program. Today’s decision reinstates the textbook lending program.

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO –  A group of New Mexico school students today asked the state Supreme Court for equal access to state education services. In Moses v. Ruszkowski, activists sued to end an 80-year-old textbook lending program that gives all students equal access to state-approved textbooks and other learning materials. In 2015, the state Supreme Court banned students at nonpublic schools from participating in the program. But the U.S. Supreme Court, following its decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer last June, sent the case back to New Mexico’s high court for reconsideration.

New Mexico is ranked lowest of all 50 states in terms of education. The textbook lending program seeks to lift the state’s literacy levels by ensuring that all children have equal access to quality textbooks. The program especially benefits thousands of low-income and minority students living in rural areas with limited educational opportunities. But in 2012 activists sued the state arguing that the textbook lending program violates the state constitution because students at religiously affiliated schools can participate on equal footing with all other students.

“We should be investing in kids’ futures, not crippling their ability to gain a quality education,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which is defending the New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools (NMANS) and the state’s textbook program. “Ending the textbook lending program will disproportionately hurt low-income and minority children, at a time when they need access to a quality education more than ever.”

The lawsuit relies on a discriminatory 19^th century state law—called a Blaine Amendment—that was originally designed to disadvantage New Mexico’s native Catholic citizens. Now, in New Mexico and across the country, Blaine Amendments have been used to keep religious organizations from participating in neutral, generally applicable government programs on the same terms as everyone else. For example, activists have used Blaine Amendments try stopping children with disabilities from attending schools that best meet their needs, preventing schools from making their playgrounds safer, to stopping food kitchens from helping the poor, and closing service providers that help former prisoners successfully re-integrate into society.

Both the trial court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the textbook lending program, but in 2015 the New Mexico Supreme Court, based on the Blaine Amendment, ruled that the program was unconstitutional. In 2017 Becket appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following a 7-2 ruling in Trinity Lutheran, a similar case involving Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, that Court ordered the New Mexico Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on the textbook lending program.

“A science textbook is a science textbook no matter whose shelf it’s on,” said Baxter. “It’s time to stop discriminating and give all kids equal access to the best educational opportunities.”

A decision is expected in the case sometime late 2018.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

### 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – New Mexico’s low-income and minority children have a second chance at a quality education now that the New Mexico Supreme Court is reconsidering its earlier ruling against the State’s textbook lending program. Following its ruling in Trinity Lutheran earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the New Mexico Supreme Court to rethink its ruling in New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses, which ended the textbook lending program under a constitutional provision that discriminates against religious schools.

The New Mexico textbook program was designed to promote equal access to a quality education for low-income and minority children, yet in 2014 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against it because some of those students attend religious schools. Yesterday, Becket filed a brief on behalf of the New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools urging the Court to uphold the textbook lending program.

“New Mexico has been lending textbooks to disadvantaged students for more than a century,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, which is defending the New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools and the state’s textbook program. “It makes no sense to punish kids for choosing to attend religiously affiliated schools, especially in lower-income communities.”

Anti-religion activists claim the textbook lending program violates the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19^th century anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic provision. The Blaine Amendments were designed to discriminate against a growing wave of Catholic immigrants to the United States and remain today in many state constitutions.

“From kicking Catholic immigrants out of polite society to kicking children out of a quality education, these provisions hurt the vulnerable and marginalized in society,” said Baxter. “It’s time to end the bigoted reign of Blaine.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court will now reconsider its ruling against the program in light of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, with a decision expected next year.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Additional Information:                                             

• Becket’s Opening Brief (November 13, 2017)
• U.S. Supreme Court GVR Order (June 27, 2017)
• New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion (May 30, 2017)
• Case Page for NMANS v. Moses (press releases, legal documents, news, images)

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court this morning told the Supreme Court of New Mexico to reconsider a ruling discriminating against low-income and minority children. A New Mexico textbook program was designed to promote equal access to a quality education for low-income and minority children, yet the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against it because some of those kids attend religiously affiliated schools. Today’s order protects the right of religious organizations and all New Mexico students to participate in government programs without discrimination.

This is the Supreme Court’s second such ruling in two days. Yesterday, in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the U.S. Supreme Court protected religious organizations’ right to participate in Missouri’s “safe playgrounds” initiative. Both the Missouri and New Mexico cases challenged Blaine Amendments, which are 19th century provisions in many state constitutions that discriminate against religious organizations—especially those focused on serving vulnerable populations. Today’s order requires the New Mexico Supreme Court to give the textbook program “further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran.”

“In preventing skinned knees or ensuring kids learn their A-B-C’s, states are getting a clear message from the U.S. Supreme Court: they can’t exclude people from participating in government programs because of their religion,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket. “The Court’s back-to-back rulings prove that it shouldn’t matter what your faith is—everyone has the right to participate in society on equal footing.”

Becket is defending the New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools and the state’s textbook program. Both the trial court and New Mexico Court of Appeals protected the program, but in 2015, the New Mexico Supreme Court disagreed. The New Mexico Supreme Court must now reconsider its ruling in light of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court today protected a Lutheran preschool, ruling that Missouri can’t discriminate against the school in a program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids. The Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer is a win for religious liberty, making clear that the government can’t blacklist religious organizations from participating in public safety programs simply because they are religious.

The state of Missouri created a program to protect schoolchildren from injury by helping nonprofit organizations resurface their run-down playgrounds, replacing old, hard gravel playground surfaces with safer and softer recycled shredded tire material. Trinity Lutheran preschool met all the state’s criteria for a new playground surface, yet was rejected from the program because of an old, discriminatory state law called a Blaine Amendment, which was designed to block funding to Catholic schools. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing it is discriminatory to block religious groups from generally available public safety programs.

The Court agreed with Becket, ruling, “The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion. And the result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office. The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand. ”

“The Court’s decision is good for kids and good for religious liberty,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm that filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the school’s behalf. “Trinity Lutheran was simply asking that the government play fair, treat churches equally, and help the preschool make its playground safer for children. Today’s decision does just that.”

Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was enacted in the late 1800s during a time of anti-religious bigotry and was originally designed to block funding to Catholic schools. Since then, Blaine Amendments like Missouri’s have been used to discriminate against people of all faiths including a Florida prisoner ministry, a Catholic orphanage, and several religious schools, preventing them from participating in public benefit programs.

“This decision is significant because seven of the justices agreed that churches can’t be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to widely available public safety benefits,” said Smith.

Becket, along with Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief defending Trinity Lutheran’s right to participate in the state’s program on equal footing with all other applicants.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

 ###

 Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

This morning the Georgia Supreme Court protected low-income schoolchildren and their scholarship program from a challenge that used a discriminatory 19th century law called the Blaine Amendment. The decision allows students to receive the best education for their needs, regardless of the school they choose.

Georgia’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program was created to help Georgia schoolchildren—particularly low-income students—get a quality education. However, several challengers sued to shut down the program, arguing that students on scholarships may choose to attend religious schools. The challengers claimed these tax credits amounted to state money for religious education. Today, the court rejected the attack on the program, stating, “When the state refunds money for overpayment of taxes, it is not remitting public funds but is returning the taxpayer’s own money.”

“Disgruntled taxpayers do not have the right to deprive children of a quality education,” said Lori Windham, senior  counsel at Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the scholarship program. “Thanks to the court, schoolchildren who rightfully earn scholarships have the right to choose their own futures.”

Under the program, Georgia taxpayers can donate to scholarship organizations and receive a credit on their state taxes. But some challengers used the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19th century law rooted in anti-religious bigotry, to try and shut down the scholarship program. Blaine Amendments were passed during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry during the 1870’s and were designed to keep Catholic organizations—including orphanages, schools and charities—from having access to public funds, during a time when public schools used Protestant prayers, lessons and Bible readings. Today, those laws are being used against any school that is “too religious.”

“This law has been discriminating against religious schools, charities, and children for centuries. It’s time to end Blaine’s baneful existence,” said Windham. 

Last year, a lower court dismissed the case, but the challengers appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, which ruled to protect the program. Late last year, Becket urged the court to protect both the children and the religious schools they attend from discrimination.

A similar lawsuit in Oklahoma aimed at preventing special-needs kids from using a scholarship to help them attend a school—secular or religious—was defeated in February of last year (watch video).

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago the Georgia Supreme Court heard a case concerning low-income children whose scholarship program is being threatened by a discriminatory 19th century law.

Georgia’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program was created to help Georgia schoolchildren—particularly low-income students—get a quality education. However, several taxpayers sued to shut down the program, arguing that students on scholarships may choose to attend religious schools. Last year, a lower court dismissed their case, but the taxpayers appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Last month, Becket urged the court to protect both the children and the religious schools they attend from discrimination.

“It would be a terrible mistake to use a bigoted law from the nineteenth century to prevent students from receiving a quality education,” said Lori Windham, senior  counsel at Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the scholarship program. “This discriminatory law should have been dead and buried a century ago. Instead, it’s still roving Georgia, trying to kill scholarships for needy kids.”

Under the program, Georgia taxpayers can donate to scholarship organizations and receive a credit on their state taxes. Taxpayers are using the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19th century law rooted in anti-religious bigotry, to try and shut down the scholarship program. Blaine Amendments were passed during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry during the 1870’s and were designed to keep Catholic organizations—including orphanages, schools and charities—from having access to public funds. Yet public schools at the time used Protestant prayers, lessons and Bible readings. Today, those laws are being used against any school that is “too religious.”

“Georgia voters have said they want to do what is best for children, especially low-income children. It would be terrible to let an old, bigoted law stand in the way of a child’s future,”” said Windham. 

A similar lawsuit in Oklahoma aimed at preventing special-needs kids from using a scholarship to help them attend a school—secular or religious—was defeated in February of last year (watch video). Last month, Becket filed an amicus brief to the Georgia Supreme Court defending schoolchildren and the schools they choose from discrimination.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more). “

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Disgruntled Georgia taxpayers are trying to block scholarships that help low-income children receive a quality education. To do so, the taxpayers are using an anti-Catholic provision from the 19th century. In a brief filed today, Becket urged the Georgia Supreme Court to protect the children and the religious schools they attend from discrimination.

Georgia’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program helps Georgia schoolchildren—especially low-income students—get the education that best suits their needs. However, several disgruntled taxpayers sued to shut down the program because students on scholarships may choose to attend religious schools. Earlier this year, a lower court dismissed their case, but they appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

“Georgia’s program is helping low-income children. It would be a terrible mistake to use a bigoted law from the nineteenth century to hurt schoolchildren today,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket.

In 2015 the state of Georgia created the Scholarship Tax Credit Program aimed at helping low-income students receive a quality education. Under the program, Georgia taxpayers can donate to scholarship organizations and receive a credit on their state taxes. Because parents might use scholarships at religious schools, the disgruntled taxpayers want the entire program shut down. The taxpayers are using the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19th century law rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry, to try and shut down the scholarship program.

Blaine Amendments were passed during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry during the 1870’s  and were designed to keep Catholic organizations—including orphanages, schools and charities — from having access to public funds. Public schools at the time used Protestant prayers, lessons and Bible readings. Today, those laws are being used against any school that is “too religious.” Both uses of the Blaine Amendment run afoul of the Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination.

“This law is a ghost from Georgia’s past. It shouldn’t be dredged up to haunt education in Georgia today,” said Windham. 

A similar lawsuit in Oklahoma aimed at preventing special-needs kids from using a scholarship to help them attend a school—secular or religious—was defeated in February of this year (watch video).

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wyatt was bullied, depressed, and failing in elementary school until a state scholarship changed his life. In a groundbreaking video, Wyatt’s family reveals how a law, which would be repealed if Oklahoma ballot measure State Question 790 passes on November 8, would have destroyed his chance for success.

The video, released today, captures the story of Wyatt, who has a hearing disability, and how Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment would have taken away his state scholarship and pulled him from a school that met his special needs. In the video, the family tells how the Blaine Amendment endangers the education of Oklahoma’s most vulnerable, including hundreds of children with special needs. State Question 790, a ballot initiative approved by overwhelmingly bi-partisan majorities, will determine whether to repeal the discriminatory state law.

“I was constantly getting notes from his kindergarten school that he wasn’t listening in class. That’s when the incidents of bullying started, because he was different. He didn’t want to be different,” says Curtis, Wyatt’s father. “After he started on the Lindsay Nicole Henry Scholarship, we put him in Metro Christian Academy here in Tulsa. He was a totally different kid.”

The Blaine Amendment is a state law that secularist groups have used to prevent the government from partnering with organizations that are motivated by faith to provide valuable educational and social services to families. In 2011, radical secularists used Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment to threaten the education of hundreds of children with special needs, all because some of these scholarships were being used for religious schools with advanced special-needs programs.

Blaine Amendments originated in the mid-1800s during a period of widespread anti-Catholic prejudice. Their purpose was to protect the majority’s control over the public schools against the growing population of Catholic immigrants. Now they are frequently used to keep religious organizations from partnering with the government to provide essential social services for people in need.

“Children with special needs deserve access to the best possible education, regardless of its source,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel of Becket Law. “Everyone benefits when states work with faith-motivated organizations to help those in need.”

In Missouri, a Blaine Amendment was used to stop a religiously affiliated school from using generally available block grants for making playgrounds safer. In California, a lease held by the Boy Scouts of America was challenged because of Scouts’ “duty to God.” Florida’s Blaine Amendment has been used by militant atheists to sue one of the state’s most successful and cost-effective rehabilitation programs for ex-convicts because of its religious affiliation.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  Nevada activist groups continue their quest to block low-income and special needs children from receiving a quality education by using an anti-Catholic law from the 19th century to shut down a Nevada program. In a brief filed yesterday, Becket urged the Nevada Supreme Court to protect the children and the religious schools they attend from discrimination.

In 2015 the state of Nevada created the Educational Savings Account (ESA) program, which allows parents to use a portion of their public school funds to pay for books, tutoring and tuition, in an effort to improve education for Nevada children — especially low-income and special-needs children. However, activist groups including the ACLU want to end the program simply because children may come into contact with religion. To do this, the groups are using the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19th century law rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry. Earlier this year a lower court dismissed the case but the ACLU appealed to the Supreme Court.

“Nevada can do better than relying on outdated, xenophobic laws,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel of Becket. “A law that was created to discriminate against Catholics long ago shouldn’t become an excuse to bar children from the education they need or discriminate against all religious schools today.”

Blaine Amendments were passed during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry during the 19th century and were designed to keep Catholic organizations—including orphanages, schools and charities—from having access to public funds. Public schools at the time used Protestant prayers, lessons and Bible readings. Today, those laws are being used by the ACLU and other groups against any school that is “too religious.” Because parents might use their ESA funds at religious schools, the groups want the entire program shut down. Both uses of the Blaine Amendment run afoul of the Constitution’s ban of religious discrimination.

“Nevada’s program is designed to help children, especially low-income and special-needs children,” said Windham. “You shouldn’t use a law that once shut down an orphanage program to shut down programs that help children today.”

Becket filed the brief with Jeffrey Barr of Ashcraft & Barr.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more). 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The State of Missouri wants to make sure children play on safe playgrounds – unless they attend a religious school. Today Becket filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Trinity Lutheran Church Learning Center, a Christian preschool that was barred from a state program providing grants to nonprofit organizations so they can replace hard playground surfaces with safer and softer recycled tires. The case will determine whether governments can ban religious organizations from participating in widely available safety programs simply because they are religious.

“A scraped knee is a scraped knee whether it happens at a Montessori school or a Lutheran school,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel for Becket. “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t discriminate against churches simply because they are religious.”

Trinity Lutheran’s playground, currently covered with a mix of gravel and grass, is used not only by its own schoolchildren but by many children from the surrounding community. When Trinity Lutheran applied to the state’s scrap tire program, its application ranked fifth out of 44 applications based on overall quality of the intended project, the number of people who would benefit from the improved playground, and the quality of the school’s recycling education programs. But, citing Missouri’s “Blaine Amendment,” the state denied the grant solely because the school is associated with a church.  Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was enacted in 1875 during a time of pervasive anti-Catholic bigotry and was originally designed to bar funding only to Catholic schools. But since then, it has been used to discriminate against people of all faiths in a variety of education and public welfare programs.

“This case is not about separation of church and state; it is about separation of reason and common sense,” said Smith. “Covering a playground with shredded tires is going to prevent injuries; it is not going to pave the way to theocracy.”

Becket filed its Supreme Court brief together with former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, now a professor at Stanford Law School. Trinity Lutheran Church, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, sued the State of Missouri in January 2013 for violating its First Amendment rights. In May 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Trinity Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on January 15, 2016, and oral arguments will take place in the fall of 2016.

For more information or to arrange a follow-up interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

 ###

Becket   is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

“

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After spending a decade fighting two highly effective homes for ex-convicts in Florida, a New York-based atheist group was forced to surrender when a Court agreed with  Becket  that it  would be “discriminatory” to exclude these homes from state partnerships merely because they were religiously inspired.

With a success rate nearly triple the national average, Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God ministries   give ex-convicts food, housing, job training, career counseling and more (view video) at a fraction of the cost of state programs. Recognizing the success of private programs, the state of Florida partners with these ministries and joined Becket in defending against the lawsuit by the New York-based group. The atheist group had neither an interest in providing alternative services nor clients that availed themselves of the services.

“Men leaving prison don’t have much hope for a stable job, food, or even a roof over their heads. But these religious groups have given them hope, and so much more,” said  Lori  Windham, Senior Legal Counsel of Becket  who represents Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries. “These ministries need to focus on helping men stay sober and turn their lives around, not defending against an unending, meritless lawsuit.”

At issue is a Florida law barring state aid to “sectarian” groups. Florida, like other states, enacted this law over a century ago in the midst of a national controversy over state funding for Catholic organizations. Today those laws, known as Blaine Amendments, are used against public-private partnerships with a variety of faith groups. The U.S. Supreme Court recently said it would review a similar law in Missouri.

“We’re glad the atheist group abandoned their ridiculous argument that religiously inspired people can’t work with the state to serve those in need,” said  Windham. “That staggering claim endangers religious hospitals and all kinds of social service programs.”

Lamb of God Ministries and Prisoners of Christ are represented by Becket and former Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding and Dylan Rivers, of Ausley McMullen. The state of Florida also defended the programs.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket   is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Oklahoma children have finally defeated school bureaucrats seeking to block their state disability aid. After three lawsuits spanning five years, the state Supreme Court yesterday sided with the students represented by Becket, upholding Oklahoma’s Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities and confirming that religious individuals and organizations can access state aid like anyone else without violating Oklahoma’s constitution.

The victory ends a sordid history of bureaucratic scheming to exclude disabled students from state benefits. After the scholarships took effect in 2010, officials at Broken Arrow, Jenks, Tulsa, and Union Public Schools refused to issue the aid because some recipients wanted to attend religiously-affiliated schools. After Becket sued to defend the students’ constitutional rights, the districts evaded the lawsuit only because the law was amended so funds came directly from the state. But in an astonishing move, Jenks and Union then sued the families for accepting their children’s scholarships. Becket again defended the students, with the state high court ultimately chastising the districts for suing. Undeterred, school allies sued the state directly, claiming the scholarships violated Oklahoma’s constitution. Yesterday’s ruling finally ends the shenanigans.

“The school bureaucrats were shameless in their fight for money,” says Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel at Becket, and lead attorney in this case. “They should be humiliated for using religious bigotry to bully students with disabilities.”

The districts’ lawsuit relied on Oklahoma’s Blaine amendment, a provision found in many state constitutions that bars aid to “sectarian” institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that these provisions arose from anti-religious bigotry, and it recently agreed to hear a case addressing their discriminatory impact. The Oklahoma Supreme Court avoided federal review by recognizing that government benefits administered without regard to religion do not violate the constitution.

“Discrimination against disabled children is always despicable,” says Baxter. “But using their religion against them in court took bullying to an unprecedented level. Thank goodness the court finally schooled the districts on students’ basic rights.”

Becket congratulates the students and their families for standing up for their constitutional rights. Oklahoma Attorney Andy Lester of the law firm Spencer Fane served as co-counsel with Becket in defending the scholarship program.

For more information or to arrange an interview with an attorney contact Melinda Skea, director of communications, at 202–349–7224 or media@becketlaw.org.

###

Becket  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States  Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Becket is defending a Nevada state government program that provides low-income students with access to tutoring and other educational opportunities. But activist groups are fighting to end the program, relying on the state’s Blaine Amendment, a 19^thcentury law with anti-Catholic roots that claims state funds can never be used toward educational opportunities that happen to be religiously affiliated. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the program, arguing that this law discriminates against religious schools and should be struck from the books.

“Activist groups are treating religious schools and the students who choose to attend them like second-class citizens,” said Diana Verm, Legal Counsel of Becket. “It is deplorable to see a discriminatory 19^th century law being used to prevent children from access to quality education simply because the school may have religious ties.”

The state of Nevada established the Education Savings Account (ESA) program in order to provide quality education to students of all incomes. The program allocates money into a specified bank account for each child that, similar to a medical flexible spending account, parents can use only for education expenses such as tuition for private schools, books and tutoring. Yet now, activist groups are suing to cancel the program and are relying on the Nevada Blaine Amendment—a law originally enacted with the purpose of shutting down an orphanage run by Catholic nuns—to argue that it should now keep parents from being able to choose their child’s school.

Becket filed an amicus brief in Duncan v. Nevada in Nevada state court, stating, “To claim that the ESA Program funds ‘sectarian’ purposes is simply a modern spin on the same discrimination that birthed the Blaine Amendments.”

Blaine Amendments prohibit the use of state funds for “sectarian” schools. In the 1880s, forbidding “sectarianism” meant forbidding Catholicism, but now activist groups are using the term to single out schools that are “too religious.” Both interpretations are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Becket is standing up to this blatant discrimination against religious schools and the students who choose them, and is urging the dismissal of this case.  

“It’s not the state’s role to protect kids from religious influence, Catholic or otherwise. Parents shouldn’t be limited by 19th century discrimination when they are deciding where to send their kids to school,” said Verm.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202.349.7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in  Holt v. Hobbs  and  Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On October 21, the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida will hear oral argument in Center for Inquiry v. Jones, a case involving an atheist group’s attempt to shut down a successful Florida program that partners with private halfway houses to serve recently released, drug-addicted prisoners. The atheists sued not only Florida, but also two of the private halfway houses, Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries, which have provided a host of services, including transitional housing, food, job search assistance, and other basic needs to former prisoners for over a decade. Florida pays only $14-20 per day to cover a portion of the costs of this wide variety of valuable social services.  At no charge to the State, the organizations also provide innovative substance abuse counseling and offer voluntary faith-based activities to former prisoners who find them helpful. Florida’s program has cut recidivism rates in half for those who successfully complete the program. Yet the Center for Inquiry, an atheist organization that does not offer any similar services to Florida prisoners, insists that the groups are “too religious,” so Florida must discriminate against them by banning them from the program. Both Florida and the organizations are opposing the atheists’ lawsuit.

What:
Oral Argument for Center for Inquiry v. Jones

Who:
Dylan Rivers, Partner at Ausley McMullen
Daniel Blomberg, Legal Counsel at Becket

When:
October 21, 2015 at 1 p.m.

Where:
Circuit Court of Leon County
301 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Becket attorneys will be available for comment immediately following the hearing.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7226. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in  Holt v. Hobbs  and  Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Washington, D.C. – Giving new strength to an antiquated and bigoted state provision, the Colorado Supreme Court eliminated a scholarship program for low income students this week. Two years ago, a lower court said that the Choice Scholarship Program was legal, effectively rejecting the discriminatory Blaine Amendment. On Monday, however, the higher court disagreed by a vote of 4-3.

“All these families want is a good education for their children. Instead of focusing on the needs of children, the Court decided to treat any exposure they might receive to religion as if it were second-hand smoke,” said Diana Verm, Counsel at Becket, a firm that has been fighting Blaine Amendments for over 20 years and filed an amicus brief in the appeal.

Blaine Amendments are nefarious mid-nineteenth century provisions found in dozens of state constitutions that prohibit the use of state funds for “sectarian” schools. These amendments were born out of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant bigotry that favored Protestant-dominated public schools.

“The Colorado Supreme Court got it wrong,” added Verm. “Nothing in our Constitution prohibits cooperation between religious groups and government programs. In fact, this kind of cooperation benefits untold numbers of Americans on many fronts. The White House itself has an office of faith-based initiatives to foster increased cooperation between religious groups and the government.”

In March 2011, Douglas County created the Choice Scholarship Program to help low-income families send their children to private schools of their choice. The ACLU, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and several local organizations sued to end the scholarships. Relying on a Blaine Amendment, the district court struck down the program, but in early 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the scholarship program, wisely rejecting the dark history of the Colorado Blaine Amendment. On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the court of appeals decision.

Douglas County has said that it is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to right the wrong of religious discrimination still apparent in Colorado’s legal system today.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202.349.7224. 

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Florida can continue to partner with faith-based groups to serve recently released prisoners, thanks to two prisoner ministries who stood up against an atheist activist group. The ministries, both represented by Becket, argued in court that the law allows religious groups to partner with the state to feed, house, and help former prisoners find jobs. They also argued that the law did not allow the atheist group—which had never seen the program in action, witnessed its life-changing success, nor had any interest in offering assistance to recently released prisoners—to discriminate against private groups just because of their faith.

“For most newly released offenders, the prison gate is a revolving door. Without help from groups like Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries, many of these men would be back in prison in a matter of months, and most of them will be in handcuffs again in just two years,” said  Lori  Windham, Senior Legal Counsel of Becket who represents Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries. “These men are dumped at the bus station with a few dollars and even less hope. They need help, and these private groups are there for them. They pick up these former prisoners, give them a safe place to stay, provide community and accountability, and help them find jobs.”

For over a decade, Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God ministries have partnered with the state to provide housing, employment assistance, food, and other basic needs to thousands of former inmates.  And studies show that the programs slash recidivism rates, benefitting both the inmates and society. All of this comes at significant savings to taxpayers: The state covers just a fraction of the daily cost, sometimes less than $15 a day. Not only do men receive food, clothing, and a place to stay, but the private groups provide twelve-step programs and optional religious services, at no cost to the state.

“The Court was right to reject a discriminatory attempt to punish successful prisoner ministries simply because they were run by religiously-inspired people. Former prisoners need help, and it’s wrong to stop people who are helping just because naysayers on the sidelines don’t like religion,” said Windham. “It’s a pity that the ministries and the men they serve had to wait on pins and needles for a nearly decade because an activist group – who had no interest in helping prisoners or providing alternatives – had nothing better to do than try to bully a successful program out of existence.”

The two ministries came under fire from Center for Inquiry, a New York-based atheist group that wanted to exclude religious groups from providing social services for the state. At issue was a Florida law barring state aid to “sectarian” groups. The Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida rejected the atheist group’s argument claim, pointing out that such an extreme rule would stop the state from paying Florida’s large Baptist and Catholic hospital systems to serve the poor.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently said it would review a similar law in Missouri.

The atheist group has 30 days decide whether to appeal. Lamb of God Ministries and Prisoners of Christ are represented by Becket and former Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding and Dylan Rivers, of Ausley McMullen. The state of Florida is also defending the programs.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202.349.7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Washington, DC – Today, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program, allowing hundreds of children with disabilities to continue attending schools suited for their special needs.

“This is a great victory for both religious freedom and the disabled,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for Becket Law, which represents the parents of disabled students who were sued by their public school districts.  “The message from the Supreme Court today is unequivocal: These school districts should stop spending taxpayer dollars suing their most vulnerable students and focus on what they are supposed to be doing—teaching kids. Let’s hope the school districts drop their paranoia that allowing disabled kids to go to a private religious school of their choice somehow creates an official state church for Oklahoma.”

The Court’s decision didn’t reach the merits of the case; rather, it ruled that the school districts did not have the right to bring the lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s decision to fund the scholarships.

“The best thing about the scholarships is that they allow our clients to get the education that the public schools just don’t have the ability to provide,” said Baxter. “The Supreme Court’s ruling means that the school districts don’t ‘own’ their students, and the Legislature can act to help those in need.”

The scholarships were enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010 to give students with disabilities a second chance. Rep. Jason Nelson was the Act’s primary sponsor. The scholarships were funded with money saved when the scholarship recipient left the public schools. Families can use the funds toward tuition at any private school—secular or religious—as long as the school meets the State’s academic standards. The scholarships have helped families like Stephanie and Russell Spry, who were awarded a scholarship for their autistic son who was being “warehoused” in a public school that was not able to meet his special needs.

However, in 2011, two school districts sued the Sprys and other families claiming that the scholarship program violated the Oklahoma Blaine Amendment by allowing public dollars to go to religious schools.

In March, a district judge ruled against the program, agreeing with the school district reasoning it was unconstitutional. Today’s ruling overturns the district court decision.

Becket has represented the families for several years, and co-counsel Andrew Lester of Lester, Loving, & Davies in Edmond, Oklahoma participated in filing Supreme Court briefing.

Becket Law  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 18-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

###

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or call 202.349.7224.

WASHINGTON, DC –  A group of Oklahoma parents with disabled children, represented by Becket Law, have filed their critical brief before the Oklahoma Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of a scholarship program aimed to help disabled children succeed.

In Jenks v. Spry, the parents were sued by the Jenks and Union public schools for accepting state scholarships to send their children to private schools. The school districts oppose the scholarships based on Oklahoma’s “Blaine Amendment,” a provision with anti-religious roots that restricts state funds to “sectarian institutions.” The trial court ruled the scholarships unconstitutional.

“Blaine Amendments cannot be used to prevent religious students or schools from participating in State programs that are available to everyone else,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel with Becket Law. “The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that these amendments have ‘a shameful pedigree,’ which the High Court does ‘not hesitate to disavow.’”

The scholarships were enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010 to give students with disabilities a second chance. The scholarships were funded with money saved when the scholarship recipient left the public schools. Families could use the funds toward tuition at any private school—secular or religious—as long as the school met the State’s academic standards. The scholarships have helped families like Stephanie and Russell Spry, who were awarded a scholarship for their autistic son who was being “warehoused” in a public school that was not able to meet his special needs.

The brief notes that of the five families sued by the school districts, three used the scholarships to send their children to a secular private school. Only two had their children in religiously-affiliated schools. “This shows that that the scholarships are religion neutral,” said Baxter. “Oklahoma is simply helping kids with disabilities get the education they need by giving parents choices.” The brief notes that excluding schools from the list of acceptable schools just because they include some religious instruction is what would be impermissible.

Becket filed the brief with co-counsel Andrew Lester of Lester, Loving, & Davies in Edmond, Oklahoma. Several other parties, including Oklahoma State Representative Jason Nelson, the original sponsor of the bill, have indicated that they will file amicus briefs in support of the parents. The School Districts have until June 29 to respond to the parents’ arguments.

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or call 202.349.7224.

WASHINGTON, DC– Tulsa district court judge Rebecca Nightingale has issued an order allowing the “Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act” to remain intact while her decision ruling that the program is unconstitutional is being appealed.

“We are pleased the students will continue learning in an environment that can address their needs,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel with Becket Law.  “However, it is unfortunate that the school districts decided to spend their money suing the families of disabled students instead of supporting opportunities for students with disabilities to succeed.  It’s like suing grandma because she signed up for Medicare.”

In 2010, the Oklahoma State Legislature passed the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship for Students with Disabilities Program Act, which gave certain students with disabilities the right to receive a scholarship from the State of Oklahoma to facilitate their attendance in a participating nonpublic school.

“It was a win-win situation,” said Baxter. “The scholarships meet pressing needs without imposing additional costs on the state.”

However, in 2011, the Jenks and Union school districts sued the families of disabled children for participating in the program, claiming that the scholarships violated the Oklahoma Blaine Amendment by allowing public dollars to go to religious schools.  On March 27, 2012, Judge Nightingale ruled for the school districts and declared the program unconstitutional.

“This decision is unprecedented,” said Baxter. “The Oklahoma Supreme court has been clear for decades that the State can contract with private entities—including religiously-affiliated entities—to provide services the State would otherwise provide directly. What the State cannot do is exclude some service providers simply because they are religiously affiliated, which is what the district court’s ruling would lead to.”

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

 For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or call 202.349.7224.

###

 Additional Information: 

Case Page

Judge’s Order Staying Judgment Pending Appeal (April 17, 2012)

Judge’s Entry of Judgment (April 16, 2012)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Becket Law filed an amicus brief in Douglas County School District v. Larue, which will decide the legality of Colorado’s Choice Scholarship Program.  The program lets low-income families send their children to private schools of their choice and avoid failing public schools.  The district court struck down the program, ruling that a 19th-century anti-Catholic provision in the Colorado Constitution known as a “Blaine Amendment” barred using scholarships at “sectarian” schools.

Washington, DC – Change is coming to public schools across the country, but teachers’ unions and other vested interests are fighting a furious rearguard action against it, and using 19th Century anti-Catholic laws to do it. That’s why Becket has just filed a friend-of-the-court brief combating the notoriously anti-religious legislation formed at keeping Catholics, Jews, and others out.

“These discriminatory laws must be stopped,” says Becket Deputy General Counsel Eric Rassbach, “If they don’t end in Indiana, a terrible precedent will be set for the entire nation.”

Last year Indiana enacted a comprehensive statewide school choice program called the Choice Scholarship Program. The law will help families of lesser means send their children to private schools of their choice and avoid failing public schools. However, teacher’s unions are adamantly opposed to providing scholarships to poor children and have sued to try and stop the program from going into effect. Their reasoning? Because some families may decide–of their own free will–to send their children to a private religious school, they say the program violates the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition on “aid” to religious schools. The plaintiffs lost in the trial court and now the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

On Wednesday, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Indiana Supreme Court arguing that the Indiana state constitutional provision at issue should not be interpreted to shut down the Choice Scholarship Program. Becket’s brief argues that Article 1, Section 6 was adopted in a time of anti-Catholic agitation, just before the notoriously anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party came to power in the Indiana Legislature. The section was therefore custom-designed to promote Protestant “common schools” and keep out Catholics, Jews, and others. Because of its bigoted origins, Article 1, Section 6 is tainted law and cannot be used to shut down the Choice Scholarship Program. Becket filed the brief with co-counsel Kevin Koons of Kroger, Gardis & Regas in Indianapolis.

“Apparently it isn’t enough that the teachers’ unions want to deny a future to the children of Indiana, they also want to take us back to the bad old days when anti-Catholics ran the Indiana public schools,” says Rassbach. “Kids who attend religious schools should be able to apply for state scholarships on the same terms as everyone else, not sent to the back of the bus.”

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

 For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or call 202.349.7224.

 ###