The Supreme Court rules on school vouchers for Christian schools

The Supreme Court rules on school vouchers for Christian schools, but NOT on abortion

The Supreme Court issued a series of rulings on Tuesday, including one allowing education vouchers to go to Maine religious schools — without yet addressing a key abortion case that could lead to Roe v. Wade gets knocked down.

The court’s actions came as the nation braced for a potential abortion ruling shockwave after Judge Samuel Alito’s draft opinion on the abortion case was leaked.

Demonstrators had gathered around the Supreme Court in anticipation of a verdict. The building is already surrounded by a tall fence, which was put up after the draft was leaked last month.

If the judges have not changed their positions since Alito wrote the draft, it would result in the landmark Roe v. Wade’s 1973 abortion law is repealed.

An abortion rights supporter is arrested on June 21, 2022 in the United States Supreme Court in Washington, USA.  The Supreme Court is surrounded by high metal fences.  It issued five judgments on Tuesday, but none dealt with abortion

An abortion rights supporter is arrested on June 21, 2022 in the United States Supreme Court in Washington, USA. The Supreme Court is surrounded by high metal fences. It issued five judgments on Tuesday, but none dealt with abortion

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is among the most closely watched cases on the court’s list.

Among the rulings the court issued was one that allowed more public funding for religious institutions in favor of two Christian families who were contesting a Maine college-aid program that barred private schools from promoting religion. A neutral benefit program into which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent selection of private beneficiaries does not violate the establishment clause

“A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent election of private beneficiaries does not violate the constitution’s founding clause,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in majority opinion 6-3.

Retired judge Stephen Breyer penned a fierce dissent. He said the court “has never ruled what the court is ruling today, which is that a state must (may not) use state funds to fund religious education as part of a program of studies aimed at providing a free statewide ensure public education. ‘

The protesters await an important decision that Roe v.  could bring Wade down

The protesters await an important decision that Roe v. could bring Wade down

Instead, the court issued cases dealing with a legal standard for firearms convictions and the use of government funds for religious schools

Instead, the court issued cases dealing with a legal standard for firearms convictions and the use of government funds for religious schools

The verdicts come amid tensions in the court, which has a conservative majority of 6-3

The verdicts come amid tensions in the court, which has a conservative majority of 6-3

Chief Justice John Roberts ordered a leak investigation after the startling leak of a draft abortion opinion

Chief Justice John Roberts ordered a leak investigation after the startling leak of a draft abortion opinion

Judge Sonia Sotomayor offered her own appeal. “What a difference five years make. In 2017, I feared the court was “leaden.”[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional obligation.’ Today the Court brings us to a point where the separation of church and state becomes a violation of the Constitution. ‘

The decision builds on the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in a Montana case that paved the way for more taxpayer money to go to religious schools.

Maine provides public funds to pay for tuition at family-choice private high schools in some sparsely populated areas of the northeastern state that do not have public secondary schools. The schools receiving this study support under the program must be “nonsectarian” and are disfellowshipped for promoting a particular religion and presenting material “through the lens of that faith.”

26 STATES PLAN TO BAN ABORTION IF ROE V. WADE IS FORMALLY REPEATED

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Idaho

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Georgia, Iowa

Ohio

South Carolina

There are 18 states that have near-total bans on their books, while four others have time limits and another four are likely to enact new bans if Roe is lifted

There are 18 states that have near-total bans on their books, while four others have time limits and another four are likely to enact new bans if Roe is lifted

Demonstrators gather, chant and hold signs outside the Supreme Court in Washington May 2 -- the night the draft advisory was leaked

Demonstrators gather, chant and hold signs outside the Supreme Court in Washington May 2 — the night the draft advisory was leaked

Roberts criticized the state’s program, which he said is “designed to identify and disqualify otherwise eligible schools based on their religious practice.”

The ruling was the latest example of the Supreme Court, with its increasingly assertive Conservative majority, giving high priority to expanding religious freedom in recent years. The judges were receptive to claims by plaintiffs – often conservative Christians – about the government’s hostility towards religion, including in the context of education.

The families in the Maine case demanded taxpayer money to send their children to two Christian schools that integrate religion into their classrooms and have policies against gay and transgender students and staff. The First Amendment also prohibits state endorsement of any particular religion.

The court also ruled in US v. Taylor in favor of a defendant whose sentence was extended by an additional 10 years based on a Hobbs Act conviction of involvement in a “violent crime.”

The court found in its 7-2 decision that the attempted robbery portion of a conviction did not meet the standard of the Hobbs Act, which deals with robbery affecting interstate commerce, because the standard used by the courts did not requires a depiction of use of force or attempted use of force.

The case involved a 2003 robbery by defendant Justin Taylor, whose accomplice shot and killed a marijuana buyer.