On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Arizona tax credits for people who donate money to private school scholarship funds, or “school tuition organizations,” including to religious schools.
Though Arizona’s constitution states that direct aid to religious schools is banned, government officials enacted a law 13 years ago that that gave residents tax credit for money donated to the institutions. The law allows taxpayers to take dollar-for-dollar credit, up to $500 per person, and give it to said schools.
Frustrated taxpayers challenged the law in court because they argue the estimated $50 million donated annually to these organizations is an unconstitutional state subsidy for religious schools.
Although the law makes it seem as if Arizona favors religious schools, the real issue at hand is not upholding the separation of church and state, but rather a person’s constitutional right to challenge an issue like this in court.
Because the separation of church and state is such a controversial issue, one that has been argued and analyzed countless times throughout history, it should always be open to debate.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the case “threatens to eliminate all occasions for a taxpayer to contest the government’s monetary support of religion.”
Kagan’s argument is extremely valid because it is the taxpayer’s right to argue the constitutionality of any issue, especially one that affects them in such a direct way.
Although Arizona lawmakers had the right to create this law, the taxpayers had a right to fight the law. It seems as if the court ruling wasn’t just an argument over taxes, it was a step backwards in constitutional rights.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
