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

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more