Espinoza v. Montana.edited

docx

School

Nairobi Institute of Technology - Westlands *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Accounting

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DeBrow

1 Espinoza v. Montana Name Institution Course Date

2 Case Caption: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) Facts of the Case: In 2015, the Montana legislature established a program that provided a tax credit for donations to organizations that provided scholarships to private schools. Under the program, the Montana Department of Revenue (MDOR) administered the tax credits, and families could use the scholarships to pay tuition at private schools, including religious ones. However, in 2018, the MDOR announced that it would no longer provide tax credits for donations to religious schools based on the Montana Constitution's prohibition on public funds being used for religious organizations (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 2020). In state court, Kendra Espinoza, with two other moms of pupils who went to a religious school, contested the MDOR's judgment because it infringed on their First Amendment rights to free exercise. Due to potential breaches of the Montana Constitution's ban on public funds for religious groups, the Montana Supreme Court finally decided that the entire scholarship program, including those for secular universities, was unlawful. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the lower Court's ruling had been biased against them because of their religion. Procedural History: The U.S. Supreme Court granted the case certiorari. The plaintiffs asserted that Montana's ban on using public funding for religious organizations infringed the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and that the state could not disqualify religious institutions from the scholarship fund based only on their affiliation with a particular religion. Issue:

3 The Court had to decide whether Montana's ban on using public money for religious organizations infringed the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to free exercise of religion and if the state may bar religious institutions from participating in its scholarship program. Holdings: The Supreme Court ruled that Montana's ban on using public monies for religious organizations infringed the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to free exercise. Also, the Court ruled that religious schools could not be disqualified from the scholarship program only because they adhere to a particular religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 2020). Court's Rationale: The majority judgment for the Court was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, who stated that Montana's prohibition on using public funds for religious organizations amounted to bias against religious schools and the parents who chose to have their kids participate in them. The Supreme Court ruled that states must grant neutral, broadly applicable benefits from the government to religious groups and persons on the same terms as benefits granted to secular individuals and groups under the Free Exercise Clause. As religious institutions could receive scholarships through Montana's scholarship fund, the government could only exclude them from violating the right to free exercise (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 2020). Final Disposition: The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Montana Supreme Court, and the case was remanded for additional hearings in conformity with the Court's decision. Other viewpoints Justices Kagan and Ginsburg each submitted a unique dissenting opinion. Justice Ginsburg claimed that the majority's decision undermined the distinction between the state and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 the church and damaged public education. According to Justice Kagan, the majority's decision overlooked the reality that the Montana Supreme Court had ruled the entire scholarship program illegal for secular institutions. It would force states to fund religious education even though they prefer not to. Discussion The Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case clarified how states could exclude religious organizations and individuals from government benefits and programs. It highlighted the importance of the Free Exercise Clause in protecting religious liberty, and it will likely guide and affect public policy regarding religious liberty and church and state and church separation. In this case, the Supreme Court's decision is significant for several reasons. Secondly, it reiterates the idea that the Free Exercise Article obliges states to grant religious organizations and persons impartial and widely applicable government benefits on the same conditions as secular individuals and groups. Second, it clarifies how states can exclude religious organizations and individuals from government benefits and programs. Third, the decision can significantly impact public policy and religious education funding. Several states have already seen the effects of the Court's ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in real life. For instance, in response to the ruling, the New Hampshire legislature approved a bill permitting tax deductions for contributions to charities supporting religious schools. The governor had previously vetoed the bill, but the Espinoza decision provided the legal basis for overriding the veto and enacting the law (Fisher, 2020). In addition, the ruling affects the continuing discussions about financing for private schools and school choice. Those who support school choice believe parents should be able to use public funds to send their children to any school they choose, including religious institutions. School choice is

5 criticized for undermining public education and transgressing the principle of church-state separation. In conclusion, the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case is a noteworthy illustration of how case law influences and directs public administration and policy. The Court clarified how states could exclude religious organizations and individuals from government benefits and programs. It also highlighted the importance of the Free Exercise Clause in protecting religious liberty. The decision will likely have practical effects in several states and will continue to shape the debate over school choice and funding for private schools.

6 References Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020). Fisher, D. (2020, June 30). Supreme Court rules states must include religious schools in private school choice programs. Forbes.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version