Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The Supreme Court ruled clearly in Carson v. Makin that no Christian school, parent, or student can be denied equal access to public benefits simply for adhering to their beliefs — but governments are now choosing to ignore that precedent in favor of LGBTQ ideology.
Two religious schools have filed lawsuits after being excluded from receiving public benefits — in direct violation of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.
The most brazen attempt to discriminate against a Christian organization is the state of Maine’s effort to exclude Crosspoint Church’s Bangor Christian School (BCS) from its state tuition program.
Readers might remember BCS from the Supreme Court case Carson v. Makin, which was decided in 2022 in its favor.
Maine operates a tuition scholarship program because many students live in areas too small to operate a public school district, so the state allows parents of these children to use taxpayer funds to send them to private schools.
Yet from 1980 to 2022, Maine would not allow parents to choose some religious schools that were deemed to be “sectarian.”
The Supreme Court had clearly ruled in similar cases, such as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, that such discrimination against a religious organization due to its religious status was unconstitutional.
Maine argued that it was banning these schools because of their religious use of the funds rather than their religious status.
In other words, the schools were prohibited from participating because they provided religious instruction in beliefs the state found objectionable.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that discrimination based on religious use was just as unconstitutional as discrimination based on religious status and that if Maine was going to have such a tuition program it had to allow religious schools to be included — with the understanding that they would act according to their religious beliefs.
While Carson was still being decided, the legislature anticipated the Court’s decision and passed a law narrowing the religious exemptions for schools participating in the public scholarship funding.
According to BCS’s lawsuit, this was a “poison pill” meant to make sure that BCS would have to abandon policies based on its religious beliefs, including hiring only co-religionists, in order to participate in the program.
BCS’s legal representation, First Liberty Institute, provided evidence that the law was an intentional targeting of BCS. On the day the Supreme Court released its Carson ruling, Attorney General Aaron Frey issued a statement saying that the education provided by the schools in Carson “is inimical to a public education.” Frey also said such an education was “fundamentally at odds with the values we hold dear.”
A tweet from Ryan Fecteau, then-speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, confirmed that the legislature changed the law to exclude schools like BCS in anticipation of the “ludicrous decision from the far-right SCOTUS.”
Yet despite recognizing that Maine had specifically targeted BCS and that the policy does, in fact, burden BCS’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the district court decided not to apply strict scrutiny to Maine’s law and declined to grant a preliminary injunction.
Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that its actions serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored, such that it uses the least restrictive means of achieving its goal.
First Liberty is appealing the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Meanwhile in neighboring Vermont, a Christian school is fighting a ban that prevents its students from participating in sports or other extracurricular activities because of the school’s religious beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed an opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the part of Mid Vermont Christian School and one of its families.
Mid Vermont drew national headlines in early 2023 when its high school girls’ basketball team forfeited in the playoffs rather than compete against a team with a male who identified as a female.
Mid Vermont stated that agreeing to play the game would have been an affirmation of a view on sex and gender that violates its religious beliefs. It also noted safety and fairness concerns.
The male athlete was 6’1’’ and according to the brief was known for throwing elbows, blocking shots, and knocking girls to the ground. The boy’s coach had nicknamed him “Not in My House” due to his penchant for blocking shots.
The players on Mid Vermont’s team were “extremely uncomfortable playing a contact sport with a member of the opposite sex both for reasons of safety and the overall uncomfortableness of the proximity and contact necessary to play [the] sport to its fullest.”
Despite these reasons, the Virginia Principals’ Association (VPA) banned Mid Vermont from all future middle and high school activities and derided its beliefs.
It also deemed itself an authority on Christian doctrine, stating, “The School’s claim is wrong.”
The VPA explained that “[p]articipating in an athletic contest does not signify a common belief with the opponent” adding “Brigham Young University athletes do not compromise their Mormon faith—or endorse Catholicism—when they play Notre Dame.”
It went so far as to argue, “[t]his case [had] nothing to do with beliefs”.
As in the case of Bangor Christian School, the district court declined to use strict scrutiny in the case and sided with VPA.
ADF argues that VPA allowed teams to forfeit games for secular reasons, noting that it allowed three teams to forfeit games rather than play against a team with a player who had a COVID mask exemption. It argued,
“The Free Exercise Clause demands more. State actors trigger strict scrutiny when they treat any comparable secular activity better than religious exercise. And the same goes for denying a religious accommodation based on someone else’s religious views… The VPA cannot wield such unbridled discretion, accept when schools forfeit games for secular reasons, and then expel Mid Vermont for forfeiting a game based on its religious beliefs. Nor can the VPA deny Mid Vermont a religious accommodation because a Mormon school can compete against a Catholic school without violating its beliefs. The VPA’s actions trigger strict scrutiny, which the district court refused to apply and the VPA cannot satisfy.”
These cases are clear violations of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Maine views the Court as “far-right” and therefore not legitimate. This is an arrogant and dangerous view that emboldens left-leaning states and officials to simply ignore rulings they don’t agree with.
Either all states must follow the Supreme Court’s rulings or no state is required to follow any of its rulings.
The ruling in Carson v. Makin should be adhered to just like any other Supreme Court precedent.
To recap, the justices ruled that not only could the government not discriminate against schools because of their religious status but they also could not discriminate because of their religious use. Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated,
“The benefit provided by statute is tuition at a public or private school, selected by the parent, with no suggestion that the ‘private school’ must somehow provide a ‘public’ education. Maine may provide a strictly secular education in its public schools. But BCS and Temple Academy—like numerous other recipients of Maine tuition assistance payments—are not public schools. Maine has chosen to offer tuition assistance that parents may direct to the public or private schools of their choice. Maine’s administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any public benefit program—including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient’s religious exercise.”
Allowing a religious school to participate in the program only if it violates its religious beliefs is just as unconstitutional as not allowing it to participate at all.
In Mid Vermont’s case the VPA set itself up as an authority on doctrine, something the state may not do, and discriminated against religious views it detests. The real issue is that the VPA is placing its ideology and the feelings of transgender students above the religious beliefs, safety, and right to bodily privacy of other students.
These should have been clear cut cases based on the Constitution and numerous Supreme Court rulings that protect the rights of religious Americans. Hopefully, higher courts will now rectify these wrongs — and send a message to government officials that they too must follow the law.
As seen in this article, many K-12 schools now embrace the secular woke agenda and are hostile to Christian beliefs and parental rights. Fortunately, parents don’t have to settle for this. Liberty University Online Academy is a K-12 program designed to educate your children in the ways of the Lord while preparing them to stand firm in their faith when they graduate. Our flexible online curriculum ensures that your student is trained at your convenience and keeps YOU the ultimate educator of your children.
