Believe it or not, the topic of this thread is a case that will be argued before the US Supreme Court. Anyone want to try an on-topic response?
@PeteS in CA I'm confused over exactly what this case is about, and I'm kind of tired of trying to find a clear statement of the question(s) presented. The things I've read are so biased one way or the other that I can't find a fair statement of the issue. What I do understand is that there was a Montana program that permitted taxpayers to give a credit for school tuition, without regard to whether the school had a religious affiliation. The Tax Board said the money can't go to religious schools, and so barred the credit for people using it for religious schools. They claimed religious bias, and so sued the Tax Board. The Montana Supreme Court responded by tossing the entire program, so now there is no tax credit available at all even for secular private schooling. But, the case hasn't been dismissed as moot, so that's the puzzle. As I see it, there are two potential questions, and I don't know which is actually the case:
1) Cancelling an entire state program because some of the money might go to religious schools should parents direct it so is unconstitutional, because it is evidence of anti-religious bias. So, even though wiping out the whole program would seem to be non-discriminatory, it in fact is unconstitutional because the
motivation for killing the program is unconstitutional bias. Or....
2) The Court is hearing the original underlying claim -- that a state cannot lawfully bar private religious schools from having the same access to funds as do private secular schools -- that was at issue before the Montana Supreme Court nuked the whole program. In other words, they're ignoring the decision of the Montana Supreme Court to moot the whole issue by eliminating the program.
Or is it something else I'm not grasping?
Anyway, I'm thinking it is 1). If so, I'm kind of torn. I am not a fan of invalidating legislative or executive actions based on trying to discern the motivation of those passing the law. Either the action is constitutional on its face, or it isn't. That was kind of the issue in that North Carolina voting I.D. case. So, my gut would be to side with Montana, and say that if they nuked the program so that everyone is treated evenly, that's constitutional. Even if it was motivated by a desire to penalize religious private schools.
I say I'm torn because SCOTUS declined to take up that North Carolina case, and therefore let stand the idea that a bad motive can invalidate an otherwise constitutional law. And if we're going to start basing constitutionality off motivations, then I'd side with the plaintiffs here.
If I'm right about this being 1), then it's actually a bigger case than it seems at first blush, and goes beyond just whether or not religious schools can get money. For example, if Congress votes to reduce payments for something like Medicaid, could someone then sue and claim that Congress couldn't do that because minorities benefit from it disproportionately, and the cuts were (allegedly) motivated by anti-minority sentiment? In other words, can all Congressional actions be second-guessed for constitutionality because of motive, even if they are unbiased on their face?
