Carson v. Makin
The Facts
Maine's sparsely populated rural areas have many towns without high schools. Maine funds private school tuition for students in those towns but requires participating schools to be 'nonsectarian.' Two families chose religious schools, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy, and were denied tuition assistance. They sued arguing the exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause. The First Circuit upheld the exclusion, reasoning that Maine was not compelled to fund religious education. The case followed Trinity Lutheran (2017) and Espinoza v. Montana (2020) extending religious schools' access to public programs.
The Application
Maine's program offered a generally available public benefit, private school tuition funding for students in towns without public high schools, but required participating schools to be nonsectarian, denying assistance to families who chose Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. Under Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, once a state extends a public benefit to private entities on a generally available basis, it cannot exclude otherwise eligible recipients based on their religious character. Since the religious schools satisfied all program criteria except the sectarian exclusion, Maine's discrimination was not neutral or generally applicable but rather singled out religious institutions for exclusion. The Court held that this exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause by conditioning public funding on the rejection of religious education.
The Conclusion
**Landmark 2022 ruling holding Maine's sectarian exclusion unconstitutional.** The decision effectively requires states offering private school tuition programs to include religious schools on equal terms. Together with Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, Carson completes a shift in Establishment Clause jurisprudence that has narrowed the constitutional basis for excluding religious institutions from public benefit programs.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Carson v. Makin (2022) held 6-3 that Maine's tuition assistance program. Which paid private school tuition for students in towns without public high schools, but excluded religious schools. Violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court held that once a state offers a generally available public benefit, it cannot exclude otherwise eligible recipients solely because they are religious. The decision is the third in a trilogy extending Everson's wall-of-separation framework in favor of religious schools' equal access to public programs.
Facts
Maine's sparsely populated rural areas have many towns without high schools. Maine funds private school tuition for students in those towns but requires participating schools to be 'nonsectarian.' Two families chose religious schools, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy, and were denied tuition assistance. They sued arguing the exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause. The First Circuit upheld the exclusion, reasoning that Maine was not compelled to fund religious education. The case followed Trinity Lutheran (2017) and Espinoza v. Montana (2020) extending religious schools' access to public programs.
Issue
Whether Maine's exclusion of religious schools from an otherwise generally available tuition assistance program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Rule
Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I) prohibits state laws that are not neutral and generally applicable toward religion. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (2017) held states cannot exclude religious organizations from public programs because of their religious identity. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) extended this to exclude any program that disqualified schools based on their religious character.
Analysis
Maine's program offered a generally available public benefit. Private school tuition funding for students in towns without public high schools. But required participating schools to be "nonsectarian," denying assistance to families who chose Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. Under Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, once a state extends a public benefit to private entities on a generally available basis, it cannot exclude otherwise eligible recipients based on their religious character. Since the religious schools satisfied all program criteria except the sectarian exclusion, Maine's discrimination was not neutral or generally applicable but rather singled out religious institutions for exclusion. The Court held that this exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause by conditioning public funding on the rejection of religious education.
Conclusion
**Landmark 2022 ruling holding Maine's sectarian exclusion unconstitutional.** The decision effectively requires states offering private school tuition programs to include religious schools on equal terms. Together with Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, Carson completes a shift in Establishment Clause jurisprudence that has narrowed the constitutional basis for excluding religious institutions from public benefit programs.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support