World News

Supreme Court lifts ban on state aid to religious schooling – The Denver Post

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for religious schools to obtain public funds, upholding a Montana scholarship program that allows state tax credits for private schooling.

The court’s 5-4 ruling, with conservatives in the majority, came in a dispute over a Montana scholarship program for private K-12 education that also makes donors eligible for up to $150 in state tax credits.

The Legislature created the tax credit in 2015 for contributions made to certain scholarship programs for private education. The state’s highest court had struck down the tax credit as a violation of the Montana constitution’s ban on state aid to religious schools. The scholarships can be used at both secular and religious schools, but almost all the recipients attend religious schools.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that said the state ruling violates the religious freedom of parents who want the scholarships to help pay for their children’s private education. “A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the high-court ruling “is perverse. Without any need or power to do so, the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.”

Parents whose children attend religious schools sued to preserve the program.

Roughly three-dozen states have similar no-aid provisions in their constitutions. Courts in some states have relied on those provisions to strike down religious-school funding.

Advocates for allowing state money to be used in private schooling said the court recognized in its decision that parents should not be penalized for sending their children to schools that are a better fit than the public schools.

“This opinion will pave the way for more states to pass school choice programs that allow parents to choose a school that best meets their child’s individual needs, regardless of whether those schools are religious or nonreligious,” said Erica Smith, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the parents in their court fight.

But the president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which counts more than 12,000 teachers and other school workers as union members, called the decision “a slap in the face” to its members and the communities they serve.

“Today’s decision violates Montana’s commitment to public education, our children, and our constitution. Extremist special interests are manipulating our tax code to rob Montana children of quality education while padding the pockets of those who run exclusive, discriminatory private schools,” union president Amanda Curtis said.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed, in a separate opinion, to evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry that he said motivated the original adoption of the Montana provision and others like it in the 1800s, although Montana’s constitution was redone in 1972 with the provision intact. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose two daughters attend Catholic schools, made a similar point during arguments in January when he talked about the “grotesque religious bigotry” against Catholics that underlay the amendment.

The decision was the latest in a line of decisions from the Supreme Court, which now includes Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, that have favored religion-based discrimination claims. In 2014, the justices allowed family-held, for-profit businesses with religious objections to get out from under a requirement to pay for contraceptives for women covered under their health insurance plans. In 2017, the court ruled for a Missouri church that had been excluded from state grants to put softer surfaces in playgrounds.

The high court also is weighing a Trump administration policy that would make it easier for employers to claim a religious or moral exemption and avoid paying for contraceptives for women covered by their health plans. Still another case would shield religious institutions from more employment discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court also has upheld some school voucher programs and state courts have ratified others.

This story corrects the 9th paragraph spelling to ‘Erica,’ not ‘Erika.’

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Colorado Supreme Court upholds state’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines, finding that the prohibition does not violate residents’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the state Constitution.

The justices ruled that the ban is a “reasonable exercise of police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense” set out in the Colorado Constitution.

The ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds was put in place in 2013 in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting the prior year, in which the gunman used such a magazine to fire more than 60 rounds in less than a minute, killing 12 and wounding dozens.

The court did not consider whether the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Rather, the court considered a narrow argument — brought by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Association for Gun Rights and plaintiff John Sternberg — that the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines is worded in such a way as to constitute a ban on “practically all detachable magazines,” therefore violating the right to bear arms in defense of home, person and property.

The justices rejected that argument, finding that the state’s ban was specific enough to avoid running afoul of the state Constitution, and finding that the plaintiffs’ argument relied on an “overly broad” interpretation of the ban based on a “misreading” of the law’s plain language.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners declined comment Monday and the National Association for Gun Rights did not immediately return a request for comment.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Monday that the ruling was a “win for public safety and the rule of law.”

“As the Court states in its opinion, there is overwhelming evidence that the General Assembly placed reasonable limitations on large-capacity magazines to 15 rounds when it passed the law seven years ago,” he said.

The court also found that the ban does not infringe on the state right to bear arms in self-defense because being able to fire more than 15 rounds without reloading is not necessary for self-defense.

The purpose of the ban, the court found, was clearly to try to reduce casualties in future mass shootings.

“The prohibition on (large-capacity magazines) is reasonably related to that legitimate — and increasingly critical — state interest,” Justice Monica Marquez wrote in the court’s opinion. “Evidence at trial established that the use of (large-capacity magazines) in mass shootings increases the number of victims shot and the fatality rate of struck victims. It also established that (large-capacity magazines) were used in some of the most horrific shootings in recent memory. These statistics have been deeply felt in Colorado, where (large-capacity magazines) played a lethal role in the Columbine and Aurora massacres.”

Source: Read Full Article