Skip to main content

Supreme Court Frees States From Oppressive Blaine Amendments; School Choice Is Within Reach For Legislature


Last week SCOTUS told Montana, and by extension, the other 49 states that they can't exclude religious schools from generally applicable school choice programs simply because they are religious. This should have been the self-evident conclusion of anyone who read the First Amendment through the lens of history. The idea that the founders would have allowed states to discriminate against religious schools is foolish. 


At the time of the founding, many states had established religions. It was only the federal government that was prevented from establishing a religion. It was also barred from interfering with states’ establishments. The relevant phrase is “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (emphasis added) The constitution has since been amended, and most of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights have been applied to or “incorporated against” the states - that is why state police can no longer search a home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But many First Amendment scholars argue that the establishment clause cannot be applied to states, since it was a protection of states’ rights from the federal government. It makes no more sense than trying to incorporate the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states and the people, against the states. Both amendments protect the sovereignty of states from federal power. How could that become a limitation on state power?


So what did the Supreme Court do, and what are the practical effects? Montana had a tax scholarship program, similar to Oklahoma’s Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship, which allowed donors to give tax-deductible money to a scholarship organization, which would then be distributed to students to be used to help cover tuition at any qualified private school. Religious schools were allowed in the program on the same terms as any other school. Montana has a Blaine Amendment in their constitution - one that says the state may give “no aid” to religious schools. The Montana Supreme Court invalidated the entire scholarship program because it could find no other way to balance the competing claims of the state provision and the federal Establishment Clause. 


The US Supreme Court reminded the Montana court that when a state law conflicts with the US Constitution, the state law must fall. SCOTUS ruled that eliminating an entire program to make sure that no religious person or institution is positively impacted by the program is the kind of discrimination that violates the Free Exercise Clause. SCOTUS has not said, in so many words, that the program must be allowed to resume. It has only said that the reasoning the Montana court provided for striking the program down is unacceptable.The Montana Supreme Court will have another opportunity to review the program and rule on its constitutionality in light of the new holding from SCOTUS. Typically, courts that are overruled like this are properly chastened, and reverse course on their prior rulings. Occasionally, one will try to find a different path to get the same result. 


What does this mean for Oklahoma? It means the ball is firmly in the legislature’s court. There is no excuse for the legislature to continue sitting on its hands on school choice. It was understandable, until last week, that a legislator might not want to take the political risk of fighting for school choice, only to have the program undone by Oklahoma’s own Blaine Amendment. Today that is no longer an obstacle. The ruling will not, by the way, return the 10 Commandments Monument to the Oklahoma State Capitol. But it will prevent the Oklahoma Supreme Court from invalidating school choice measures that let parents choose the best school for their kids. 


There is a moral right and a moral wrong. Making school choice available to ALL students - giving them the means to get a real education where a monopolistic system is failing - is the morally right thing to do. The problem with voucher pilot programs was not with the “voucher” part, it was with the “pilot” part. Any family who wants to get their kids out of terrible public schools should be given the means to do so - the state should be in the business of funding students’ education, not in the business of making sure schools continue to stand as employment programs for adults. 


Teachers don’t realize it, but they would benefit from school choice as well. Right now, they are employed by a monopsony - the public schools employ the vast majority of teachers. If a teacher dislikes their district, their only option is move to another district. School choice would increase demand for non-public schools, meaning more teachers would be able to work for someone other than the public districts, who too often prize avoiding angry calls from parents over educating students and holding them to high standards. If teachers don’t feel a school has their back, they will be able to move to a school that does. Odds are these will be the same schools that do the best job educating students, too. This will create a virtuous cycle, where more students want to come, so more teachers are hired. 


The only losers in school choice are teachers unions and cowardly bureaucrats. Let’s put students first, teachers second, and get the added benefit of improving society. Forcing union bigwigs and bureaucrats to find a new line of work is a fair trade if it means teaching our kids. Legislature, let’s make real school choice a priority this year. 


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

1889 Institute's Statement Regarding School Closures

The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma think tank, has released the following statement regarding Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to keep schools closed for the remainder of the school year. We at the 1889 Institute consider Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to close Oklahoma’s schools for the rest of the school year a gross overreaction to the coronavirus situation. Even in the best of times and circumstances, suddenly shifting every student in the state from traditional classrooms to online distance learning will have negative educational consequences. This in addition to the economic burden on two-earner families forced to completely reorder their lives with schools closed. We believe many of our leaders have overreacted to worst-case scenarios presented by well-intended health experts with no training or sense of proportion in weighing the collateral damage of shutting down our economy versus targeting resources to protect the truly vulnerable. We say reopen the schools and stop the madness. ...
Read more

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal.   With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.   Can a quarantine be ordered?   Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered? Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior?   Can businesses be ordered to close? Can state governments order these measures? Can local governments order these measures? My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help preve...
Read more

Will the United States Supreme Court Stand Up For Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. Oklahoma law requires attorneys to join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association in order to practice their occupation. The folly of this this requirement lies not just in the financial burden imposed on lawyers, but in its affront to their First Amendment rights. This is because the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) routinely uses the money it receives in mandatory dues payments to support political causes. As a result, attorneys are forced to subsidize political activity and opinions they may disagree with. Over the Christmas holiday I filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the United States Supreme Court to weigh in. You can read my brief here . The case in question involves a North Dakota attorney, Arnold Fleck, who sued North Dakota’s mandatory bar association for using his mandatory dues to engage in the same type of activity th...
Read more

COVID-19 Exposes TSET’s Uselessness: Let’s Get Rid of It

After more than a month of COVID-19 house arrest , Oklahoma is reopening. However, the government-created economic disaster that shutdown orders have caused will be studied by epidemiologists, economists, and other social scientists for decades to come. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences as they occur, everything from a lack of toilet paper on store shelves (hopefully, that’s over) and hair that’s grown too long to what will undoubtedly be a host of bankruptcies. In the meantime, there is a timely question that truly ought to be answered in Oklahoma. Where has TSET (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust) been in this time of crisis? Recall that TSET was created as a quasi-independent government by constitutional amendment as part of the 46-state tobacco settlement wherein tobacco companies agreed to pay states as reimbursement for the Medicaid costs of treating tobacco users for tobacco-induced illnesses. Instead of using the money to reduce taxes for Oklahom...
Read more