Numerous American parents experience this dilemma. Their child
is struggling for any number of reasons in the local public school.
They would like to give their child a chance in another
environment. However, they cannot afford to move or choose other
educational options. They’re trapped.
You would think that a law meant to reduce the financial
barriers restricting these parents would be welcomed. Yet, certain
groups are so scared of anything that reduces the barriers to
parents choosing, if the choosing involves religious schools, that
they will fake an injury to derail a law that does so. Fortunately,
five Supreme Court justices yesterday
reminded a group of fakers from Arizona that they were not
injured by such a law.
The law those claiming injury wanted declared
unconstitutional was a 1997 Arizona bill that provides tax credits
for contributions to School Tuition Organizations (STOs). These
STOs would then use the contributions to provide scholarships to
students attending private schools.
There were two important things about the program. First,
families or other Arizonans could support this scholarship fund and
receive a tax credit and not merely a tax deduction. Second, the
STOs could provide scholarships for students attending either
secular or religious schools.
Those claiming injury brought suit against one of the
STOs, the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, on the
basis that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued
the tax credits were given to help provide scholarships to students
attending private religious schools and therefore violated the
Establishment Clause.
Fortunately, five of the juris doctors saw
through the fake injury. To sue, they pointed out that you have to
prove that you experienced injury and that the Court’s decision
could address that injury. Justice Kennedy, writing for the
majority, noted that the Arizona program may actually save the
state money since it could lead to the state having to pay for the
education of fewer children. There’s certainly no injury in that
particular case.
Even if the tax credit adversely influenced Arizona’s
education budget, he observed, no injury occurred unless an
eventual tax increase was caused by the tax credit program (a claim
that those claiming an injury never established).
Finally, the Court noted that even if the financial
connection was established, no Establishment Clause problem exists.
As Kennedy wrote, “a tax credit allows dissenting taxpayers to use
their own funds in accord with their own consciences.” In other
words, it doesn’t force anyone to give money to a religious
organization through a government program. After all, “Private
citizens create private STOs; STOs choose beneficiary schools; and
taxpayers then contribute to STOs.” The government merely refunds
their money.
Oddly, the fakers claim that when Arizonans give their own
money to the private school scholarship funds, they are depriving
the government of money. Consequently, those who do not give suffer
some sort of indirect Establishment Clause injury.
To the majority of the Court, this claim faked an injury.
As the Court noted, this view “assumes that all income is
government property, even if it has not come into the tax
collector’s hands.” In contrast, the majority held,
“When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STOs, they
spend their own money, not money the State has collected from
respondents or from other taxpayers.… Private bank accounts cannot
be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.”
It’s good to know that we’re not at that point
yet.
It’s also good to know that Arizona’s parents can be
assured that a scholarship program providing them greater
educational choice is no longer held hostage by fake injury
claims.
