Key Takeaways

1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin (2022) held that Maine's exclusion of religious schools from its tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, reinforcing that states cannot discriminate against religious schools in public benefit programs.
2. The decision builds upon earlier precedents, notably Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, by clarifying that state funding programs offering public benefits cannot exclude institutions based solely on religious status or use.
3. Carson v. Makin has broad implications for school choice, religious liberty, and the ongoing debate over the separation of church and state in the context of public funding.

Introduction

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), stands as a pivotal Supreme Court case at the intersection of religious freedom and public education funding. Decided on June 21, 2022, the case addressed whether Maine's tuition assistance program, which excluded religious (or “sectarian”) schools from receiving public funds, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case emerged in the wake of growing debates over school choice and the extent to which religious institutions may participate in government programs.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Carson v. Makin, exploring its factual background, legal reasoning, and far-reaching implications for constitutional law and educational policy. Whether you are a legal professional, educator, or policy analyst, understanding the nuances of this landmark decision is essential for navigating the evolving landscape of religious liberty and state funding.

Background of Carson v. Makin

The Maine Tuition Assistance Program

Maine is a largely rural state, and many of its school districts—especially in remote areas—do not operate their own public secondary schools. To address this, Maine established a tuition assistance program that allows families in these districts to use public funds to send their children to private schools of their choice, provided the schools are “nonsectarian.” The term “nonsectarian” was defined by the state to exclude any school that promotes a particular faith or religious belief.

The Families’ Lawsuit

The case began when several families, including David and Amy Carson and Troy and Angela Nelson, sought to enroll their children in religious schools such as Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. Both institutions integrate religious instruction into their curriculum and community life. The families argued that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from the tuition program amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against their religious beliefs.

Procedural History

The families filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maine ruled in favor of the state, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the decision, holding that the exclusion was constitutionally permissible.

The families then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were held in December 2021, and the Court issued its decision in June 2022.

Legal Issues Presented

The Free Exercise Clause

At the heart of Carson v. Makin was the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government actions that unduly interfere with the practice of religion. The key question was whether Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a generally available public benefit program constituted religious discrimination.

The Establishment Clause

Maine defended its policy by invoking the Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion. The state argued that providing public funds to religious schools would violate the separation of church and state.

Precedent: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (Oyez summary) was a critical precursor. In Espinoza, the Court held that a state could not exclude religious schools from a public scholarship program solely because of their religious status. Carson v. Makin asked whether this principle extended to programs that exclude schools based on their religious “use” or instruction, not merely their religious identity.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit and held that Maine’s law violated the Free Exercise Clause (official opinion PDF). The majority reasoned that:

• Discrimination Based on Religious Status or Use: Maine’s program was not neutral; it categorically excluded schools based on their religious character and the religious instruction they provided.
• Public Benefit Programs: Once a state decides to offer a public benefit—such as tuition assistance—it cannot disqualify recipients solely because of their religious identity or activities.
• No Sufficient Justification: The Court rejected Maine’s argument that the exclusion was necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, noting that the First Amendment does not require states to withhold public benefits from religious entities.

The Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan (and in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor), dissented. The dissenters argued that the decision undermined the separation of church and state and forced taxpayers to support religious instruction against their will. They contended that Maine’s law was a permissible effort to avoid government funding of religious indoctrination.

Justice Sotomayor also filed a separate dissent, expressing concern that the ruling further eroded the wall between church and state.

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

Neutrality and Discrimination

The majority emphasized that neutrality is a cornerstone of the First Amendment. A state cannot condition the receipt of a public benefit on the surrender of a constitutional right, such as the free exercise of religion. By excluding religious schools, Maine’s program imposed a penalty on families who chose to exercise their faith in education.

The “Status vs. Use” Distinction

A critical aspect of the case was the distinction between discrimination based on religious status (who you are) and religious use (what you do). Maine argued that it was permissible to exclude schools based on their religious instruction (“use”) rather than their religious identity (“status”). The Court rejected this distinction, holding that both forms of discrimination are unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause Argument

The Court reiterated that providing public benefits to religious schools as part of a neutral, generally available program does not violate the Establishment Clause. This position aligns with earlier decisions, such as Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which upheld school voucher programs that included religious schools as long as participation was the result of private choice.

Implications for School Choice and Religious Liberty

Expansion of School Choice

Carson v. Makin is a major victory for advocates of school choice. The decision means that states offering tuition assistance or voucher programs cannot exclude religious schools from participation. This expands educational options for families, particularly in rural areas where public schools may be limited.

Impact on State Laws

Many states have “Blaine Amendments” or similar provisions in their constitutions that bar public funding of religious schools. Carson v. Makin calls into question the constitutionality of such provisions when they are used to exclude religious institutions from generally available public benefit programs.

Religious Liberty Protections

The decision strengthens religious liberty by affirming that individuals and institutions cannot be penalized for their religious beliefs or practices when accessing public benefits. It reinforces the principle that the government must remain neutral with respect to religion.

Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

Concerns About Church-State Separation

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the decision blurs the line between church and state and compels taxpayers to support religious education (ACLU analysis). They fear that public funding of religious instruction could undermine secular public education and erode constitutional safeguards.

Potential Impact on Public Education

Some educators worry that the expansion of school choice programs to include religious schools could divert resources from public schools, particularly in rural and underserved communities. The debate over public funding for private education is likely to intensify in the wake of Carson v. Makin.

Future Litigation

The decision sets the stage for further legal challenges regarding the scope of state funding for religious institutions. Questions remain about how far states must go in accommodating religious schools and what limits, if any, can be placed on public funding for religious activities.

Comparative Case Law

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court held that a state could not exclude religious schools from a private school scholarship program solely because of their religious character (Oyez summary). Carson v. Makin builds on this precedent by clarifying that exclusion based on religious use or instruction is also unconstitutional.

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (Oyez summary), the Court held that a church could not be excluded from a public grant program for playground resurfacing solely because it was a religious institution. The decision in Carson v. Makin extends this logic to the context of educational funding.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (Oyez summary) upheld a school voucher program that included religious schools, provided that participation was the result of independent private choice. Carson v. Makin reinforces the principle that neutral programs that include religious options do not violate the Establishment Clause.

Practical Implications for States and Families

For State Policymakers

States that offer tuition assistance, vouchers, or similar programs must ensure that their eligibility criteria do not exclude religious schools solely because of their religious nature or instruction. Failure to do so risks violating the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

For Religious Schools

Religious schools now have a stronger legal basis to participate in public benefit programs without having to compromise their religious mission or instruction. This could lead to increased enrollment and financial stability for faith-based educational institutions.

For Families

Families seeking religious education for their children can access public tuition assistance on equal terms with those choosing secular private schools. This enhances educational choice and supports parental rights in directing the upbringing and education of their children.

Reaction from Legal and Educational Communities

Legal Analysis

Legal scholars have widely discussed the implications of Carson v. Makin, noting its significance for constitutional law and the ongoing tension between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The First Amendment Encyclopedia provides detailed analysis and context (case overview).

Advocacy Groups

Organizations such as the Institute for Justice have celebrated the decision as a victory for religious liberty and educational freedom (case summary). Opponents, including civil liberties groups, warn that it undermines the principle of church-state separation.

Educational Policy

The decision is likely to influence legislative debates over school funding, voucher programs, and the role of religious institutions in public life. Policymakers must carefully navigate constitutional requirements while addressing the diverse needs of students and families.

Conclusion

Carson v. Makin is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over religious liberty, school choice, and the proper relationship between church and state. By holding that states cannot exclude religious schools from public benefit programs, the Supreme Court has expanded the protections of the Free Exercise Clause and clarified the limits of the Establishment Clause. The ruling has immediate and far-reaching consequences for families, educators, policymakers, and advocates on both sides of the school choice debate.

For further research and authoritative legal resources, visit Counsel Stack.

Additional Resources

• Oyez Project: Carson v. Makin
• Supreme Court Opinion (PDF)
• First Amendment Encyclopedia: Carson v. Makin
• ACLU: Carson v. Makin Case Overview
• Institute for Justice: Maine School Choice

Disclaimer:
This guide provides a general overview of Carson v. Makin and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The issues discussed are complex and subject to further legal interpretation. For specific legal questions or advice, consult a qualified attorney or conduct thorough legal research.