The Court Case That Could Finally Take Down Antiquated Anti-Catholic Laws

Thirty-seven states still have Blaine Amendments on the books. The Supreme Court now has a chance to get rid of them for good.

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the most significant education cases in decades: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Centering around a modest tax-credit scholarship program in Montana, Espinoza could have major ramifications for educational-choice programs across America, which help nearly half a million students attend private schools.

In deciding Espinoza, the Court has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses. In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry, even if other justifications seem neutral.

The Espinoza case dates back to 2015, when, shortly after state lawmakers enacted the tax-credit scholarship program, the Montana Department of Revenue devised a rule that banned families from using the scholarships to attend religious schools, which account for more than two-thirds of the state’s private schools. The case is brought by three Montana moms whose children are thriving at a private religious school; without the tax-credit scholarships, the families are struggling to pay tuition. (Litigating on behalf of the parents is the Institute for Justice, where I work, though I’m not directly involved with the lawsuit.)

In May 2017, a trial court ruled in their favor and struck down the Department of Revenue’s rule. But in December 2018, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the decision, citing what is commonly known as Montana’s Blaine Amendment. Enacted during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry in 1889, the amendment bans “direct or indirect” public funding for any “sectarian purpose.”

I did a double-take initially since this is from The Atlantic...I figured there must be some leftist/statist angle to liking the repeal of anti-Catholic anything. I read the article (imagine that!) and it seemed kosher. The writer works for a legal defense organization that also seems good/"right-wing."

I then looked at other Atlantic articles and someone must have been asleep at the switch: they have a few "normal" articles this month.

I still don't trust them, but it is noteworthy.

good for the SC, i hope they rule for school choice.

but Pres. Trump and Sec. DuVos: where is the school choice you promised? i’ve heard zero from DuVos since her appt.

that—outside of the Wall and a complete repeal of obamacare—would be the most important domestic achievement you could accomplish for conservatism and freedom, religious and non-religious, in this nation.

please Mr. President, get someone who can deliver this.

I agree, a little odd, but maybe The Atlantic actually wants to be a newsmaker...unlike the rest of the leftist magazine herd which only parrots Dem talking points.

Interesting. The reason that the territories of NM and AZ were late states was that Congress didn’t want that many Catholics coming in. And of course the US supported the Marxist Mexican government in its attacks on Catholics in Mexico in the early 20th century. Look up Miguel Pro.

Before that, in the mid-19th century Mexico - the place where Trotsky died, a place honeycombed by European Marxists - had already been invaded by the US, which installed Protestant churches and Masonic monuments throughout Mexico City. Very strange, and nobody has ever addressed this.

And now that there’s a Marxist in the Vatican, nobody ever will.

They are going after Christians, but they hate Catholics the most. They specifically wrote parts of the ACA to target Catholics.

Why would they hate Catholics the most when about half vote liberal, rather than the 80% for conservative President evangelicals?

Of course, in the past when Romes require RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics she point out in their land and opposed the revolution then we can understand why their might be a anti-Catholic bias.

But I am for freedom of school choice, but accepting any monies from the state usually results in strings being attached.

So we can finally get some up to date, modern anti-Catholic laws.

There certainly was a basis for resisting Rome being enabled to do as it did with its monarchies, which many here seem to dream of and thus silence the likes of myself.

78. “[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure,...to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church;...But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan...that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith. ► Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

"....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.