The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case centered on whether religious schools in Montana can qualify for a state tax credit on scholarships.
Attorneys presented their arguments before the high court on Wednesday in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. At issue was a group of parents whose children attended religious schools, suing the state to allow for the tax credit to be used for private religious school scholarships.
Diana Verm, senior counsel with Becket, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, told The Christian Post that she “thought that the argument went well.”
“It was clear that at bottom, the justices realized that this case is about religious discrimination, and they grappled with the question of whether the state can take away a state benefit just because people can use that benefit at a religious school,” said Verm.
Verm also noted that the Supreme Court justices appeared interested by the history behind Montana’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting government funding of any religious entities, including schools.
Known as a Blaine Amendment, Montana is one of 36 states to have such provisions in their constitutions. Critics, including groups like Becket, argue that they are religiously bigoted, having been created to prevent state funding of Catholic schools.
“At one point, Justice Kavanaugh asked counsel for Montana about the ‘grotesque religious bigotry against Catholics’ that gave rise to the Blaines,” noted Verm. “Those are strong words.”
Verm is optimistic that the high court will “do the right thing in this case and rule in favor of Kendra Espinoza” and the other parents.
Alex Luchenitser, associate legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who was present to hear the arguments, told CP that the court “appeared troubled in various ways by the arguments made by proponents of the voucher program.”
“Some of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed concern about whether it would be procedurally improper for the Supreme Court to decide the case,” explained Luchenitser.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Christian Post, Michael Gryboski