2010-11 Supreme Court Review
The 2010-11 United States Supreme Court term has officially ended. Each year more than 10,000 appeal petitions are filed with the Court asking the Court to hear their case. The Court only accepts about 100 of these appeal petitions annually. Because of its direct influence on the American legal system and on all of our liberties, it is essential that Christians take time to regularly pray for our Supreme Court, as well as for all our local, state and federal courts. Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” If you have not already done so, please add these courts to your prayer list.
Below are two cases from this past Supreme Court term that affect our religious liberties. Our March Legal Alert newsletter discussed a third important case from this term—the case of Snyder v. Phelps, sometimes called the Westboro Baptist case. That article is still available on our website here.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
This case has a direct impact on Christian education and how it is paid for. In Arizona, legislation was passed allowing citizens to donate money to a “Student Tuition Organization” (STO). These STOs were created by private citizens to provide money for private schools, including Christian schools. The money in each STO is given in scholarships to students at a privately selected school. The legislation also provides for a tax incentive to encourage citizens to donate to STOs. Arizona taxpayers receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit (up to $500 per individual, and $1,000 per couple) for STO donations.
This seemed to be a win-win situation for everyone. Private scholarships offset the state’s cost of education, parents receive private scholarships to pay for their children’s private school tuition, and donors receive a beneficial tax credit. Nevertheless, disgruntled taxpayers filed this lawsuit claiming that Arizona was violating the Establishment Clause by allowing this tax credit system since private religious schools could be included. The Establishment Clause, the First clause of the First Amendment, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but modern courts have sometimes (erroneously, we think) interpreted that Clause to require a complete “separation of church and state.”
The Court’s decision was very encouraging for Christian schools. The Court found there was no violation of the Establishment Clause merely because of the state’s tax credit. Going all the way back to James Madison in 1785, the Court emphasized the private nature of the STO program and said Arizona had not violated Madison’s religious prohibition “forcing a citizen to contribute three pence of his property for the support of any one [religious] establishment.” In Arizona, the Court said, the STO tax credit system merely incentivizes individual citizens to make private donations in accordance with their own consciences. The money donated does not go to the government, and the government does not pay any money to either private or religious schools. Instead, the funds are donated and used according to the wishes of the individual STO donors.
It is worth noting that Arizona’s STO program is different from previous government voucher programs. In voucher programs, taxpayer money goes directly from the government to private schools or private school students. CLA has always warned that, in such situations, government money generally comes with government strings attached. On the other hand, in a private program, like Arizona’s STO program, privately donated funds go directly to the private schools or students, and the government is only indirectly involved by providing tax credits for donations. This is similar to the government providing tax credits to incentivize donations to churches and other charities. The STO program is free from government control and, therefore, can be a good way for states to help offset education costs for all private school parents, as well as for the state government itself.
Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association
Sadly, the Court’s decision in this case reflects America’s continuing departure from Biblical morals. The California legislature enacted new rules for the sale of video games that depict “deviant violence.” Under this law, the sale of these types of games was prohibited to children under 18, the packaging would reflect this restriction, and there would be a $1,000 fine for a violation.
The Court ruled that this law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and upheld the lower court’s decision striking down the law as unconstitutional. The Justices emphasized that there is only one narrow exception to free speech limitations with regard to minors—when the material is “obscene.” The Court reasoned that the gruesome and sometimes sexually violent nature of these video games does not rise to the level of obscenity requiring parental consent for children to purchase or rent these games.
This decision is another somber reminder that parents must be ever-watchful of their children’s entertainment choices. A recent study comparing parental rules for television viewing and playing video games showed that parents set rules for video games only half as much as they do for TV viewing, and the majority of American parents do not restrict video games for their children in any way. The Court’s failure to protect children in this decision means that parental vigilance must now increase, as we do our best to help our kids to “think on these things.” See Philippians 4:8. Contrast this decision with threats of lawsuits we hear about at CLA when churches minister the Gospel to children without parental consent!
Essential Supreme Court Case Coming Next Term
Please make this a matter of urgent prayer. During the next Supreme Court term, which begins in October, the Court has already agreed to hear an important case that could impact Christian schools more than any case in recent memory. In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court will decide whether or not the “ministerial exception” will continue to apply to Christian school teachers. The ministerial exception allows churches and religious entities the right to hire and fire employees without facing discrimination charges when religious disagreements arise between the school and the employee. Please pray that the Court will side with the Christian schools, and will continue to allow this essential exception to apply to Christian schools and their teachers and staff.
