WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened the door to a new form of state support for religious schools, upholding special tax credits in Arizona for those who give money to church schools and ruling that critics may not challenge such a plan as unconstitutional.
The 5-4 decision goes further than ever before to shield government subsidies for religion from being challenged in court.
In the past, the court has said taxpayers can go to court and sue if a state or a federal agency violates the First Amendment ban on subsidizing “an establishment of religion.”
Acting on such suits, courts struck down a series of state laws in recent decades that gave public money to parochial schools.
In Monday’s decision, however, the court’s conservative bloc ruled that dissenting taxpayers may not sue to challenge special tax breaks that subsidize religious teaching. Justice Anthony Kennedy said a tax break differs from a direct subsidy because the money comes from the wallet of the person making the donation, not from the state.
In Arizona, a taxpayer may take a dollar-for-dollar credit, up to $500 per person or $1,000 for a married couple, and give the money to one of several school-tuition organizations. Those groups advertise that donors may send money to subsidize a religious school, and “it won’t cost you a dime.” Several taxpayers sued and won a ruling that this scheme unconstitutionally subsidized religion. The Supreme Court reversed that decision in Arizona Christian Tuition Organization vs. Winn. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr., plus Kennedy, formed the majority.
In her first dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan objected to the court’s distinction between tax breaks and tax subsidies. She said it made no sense and left the door wide open for broad government subsidies for religion.
Other Supreme Court action Monday
• Stay of execution: The court granted a stay of execution for an Arizona inmate scheduled to die today by lethal injection. The execution of Daniel Wayne Cook is on hold while the high court considers his lawyers’ argument that he had ineffective counsel during his post-conviction proceedings. Cook was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in the July 1987 killings of 16-year-old Kevin Swaney and 26-year-old Carlos Cruz-Ramos in Lake Havasu City.
• Death penalty reinstated: The court reinstated the death penalty for a man convicted in a double murder despite complaints that his lawyers did not offer evidence of his psychological condition at his penalty trial.
The high court overturned an appeals-court decision to throw out the death penalty for Scott Pinholster because of bad legal representation.
Pinholster was convicted in 1984 of beating and stabbing two men to death when they interrupted a burglary he and two accomplices were committing in Los Angeles.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Pinholster’s death sentence because his lawyer did not give a jury evidence of mental illness during the penalty phase of his murder trial. The high court, in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned that ruling.
Denver Post wire services
