Loading article…
カーソン対メイキン事件（596 US 767 (2022)）は、アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1条の信教の自由条項に関連する、アメリカ合衆国最高裁判所の画期的な判例である。これは、エスピノーザ対モンタナ州歳入局事件に続くものである。
この訴訟は、メイン州が提供する学校バウチャー制度の制限、特に宗教系の私立学校の授業料にバウチャーを使用することを禁じる規定を巡るものだった。最高裁は6対3の判決で、メイン州のバウチャー制限は宗教系学校とその学校を選んだ親を差別するものであり、信教の自由条項に違反すると判断した。少数意見では、州政府が宗教団体への資金提供を義務付けられることになるため、この判決は政教分離という長年の原則に反すると主張した。
多くの米国の州では、初等教育において公立学校の代わりに私立学校への授業料補助を学校バウチャー制度で提供している。いくつかの州は、ブレイン修正条項または同様の文言によって、州が宗教学校に資金提供できないことを憲法で定めているが、メイン州はそうした州には含まれていない。[ 1 ]メイン州の生徒の約半数は農村部に住んでおり、その多くには公立高校がない。[ 2 ] 1873年以来、メイン州はこれらの地域の住民が子供を近隣の公立または私立の希望する学校に通わせるための授業料補助を提供してきた。授業料補助は2021年時点で最大約11,000ドルだった。この制度の下では、子供はメイン州内外、さらには国外の私立学校にも通うことができる。[ 3 ]
Beginning in 1980, pursuant to a state attorney general opinion, those schools had to be nonreligious.[4] In 1982, the state legislature changed the law to prohibit the vouchers from being used at sectarian schools, believing that funding such schools would violate the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause.[5] But in 2002, the Supreme Court held in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that an Ohio voucher program allowing parents to use the vouchers to attend private religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause.[6] Nevertheless, Maine continued to exclude religious options from its tuition assistance program.[7] Before Carson, the Supreme Court decided two cases that were particularly relevant precedents for Carson. In the first, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the Court ruled that denying a Missouri religious school the funds to resurface a playground while providing such funds to non-religious schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and that government programs cannot discriminate on the basis of religious status.[1] In the second, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court relied on Trinity Lutheran and held that a state-based scholarship program that allows students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools.[8]
In 2018, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of two Maine families who were eligible for the state's tuitioning program and wished to use it to attend religious schools but were barred from doing so.[1][8] They argued that per Trinity Lutheran, "The government must remain neutral with regard to religion—neither favoring nor disfavoring it—and the participants must exercise a genuine choice between religious and nonreligious options."[1] As the voucher program discriminated against religious schools, the program was not neutral and therefore was unconstitutional.[1] The Institute also backed a second case in Washington state over its work-study program that prevented participants from being employed by religious organizations,[1] but the Institute agreed to dismiss the case after the state repealed the religious exclusion and allowed jobs with religious employers.
The families' case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which found for the state in 2019.[9][10] The families appealed to the First Circuit. After it had been argued in the First Circuit but before the First Circuit had issued its opinion, the Supreme Court decided Espinoza, and the families filed a new brief asking the First Circuit to factor Espinoza into its deliberations.[10] The First Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, holding that since Maine's program based its voucher allowance on whether schools teach and proselytize religion with the voucher funds, rather than whether schools are run by religious organizations, the exclusion of religious options was permissible under the First Amendment.[8]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on July 2, 2021, and held oral arguments on December 8, 2021.[11]
The families argued that if Maine's program allows parents to decide on an alternative to a public school for their children, "it has to remain neutral as between religious and non-religious private schools".[11]
州は、授業料は「公立学校で提供される教育と実質的に同じ」私立学校に通うためだけに支給されたものであり、宗教教育の要素を持つ学校は除外されなければならないと主張した。州はまた、このプログラムは学校選択プログラムではなく、通うのに合理的に近い距離に地元の高校がない生徒を支援することを目的としたものであると主張した。[ 11 ]
21州の連合[ 12 ]は原告を支持する意見書を提出し、宗教からの自由財団、アメリカ自由人権協会、全米学校理事会協会は被告を支持する意見書を提出した[ 13 ] 。
最高裁判所は6対3の判決で、メイン州の授業料補助の非宗派要件は合衆国憲法修正第1条の信教の自由条項に違反すると判断し、メイン州法を無効とし、第1巡回控訴裁判所の判決を覆した。ジョン・ロバーツ首席判事が裁判所の意見を執筆し、他の5人の判事がこれに賛同した。スティーブン・ブライヤー判事は反対意見を執筆し、エレナ・ケーガン判事が全面的に、ソニア・ソトマイヤー判事が部分的にこれに賛同した。ソトマイヤー判事は別の反対意見を執筆した。[ 14 ]
ロバーツ判事は多数意見の中で、州が宗教的信徒が公的給付を受けることを阻止することで、憲法修正第1条の信教の自由条項に違反したと述べた。同判事は、エスピノーザ事件やトリニティ・ルーテル事件など、裁判所がそのような行為を無効とした様々な事例を挙げた。同判事は、メイン州議会が「私立の宗教学校をそのような資金を受け取る資格のある者から除外した」こと、そしてそのような除外は合衆国憲法の政教分離条項の下で意図されたものよりも大きいと述べた。同判事は、ゼルマン事件に基づいて、「私人が『自身の真摯かつ独立した私的選択の結果として、完全に宗教学校に政府援助を指示する』給付プログラム[ 15 ]は政教分離条項に違反しない」と述べた。裁判所は、メイン州が「宗教的実践に基づいて、本来資格のある学校を意図的に特定し、除外している」こと、そしてそれが「宗教に対する差別」であると判決した。[ 16 ] [ 7 ]
In his dissenting opinion, Breyer expressed concern that Carson v. Makin could require states to fund religious schools with taxpayer money,[17] writing that the ruling paid "almost no attention" to the First Amendment's prohibitions on the state's establishment of religion while "giving almost exclusive attention" the Amendment's prohibitions on religious free exercise.[18] He also wrote that the ruling broke with historical precedent, that the Supreme Court had "never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education."[19]
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that in five years, the Court had "shift[ed] from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars."[17] She argued that Carson "continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build."[20]
Although Vermont is the only other state with a similar voucher program to Maine's, analysts anticipated that the decision would spur school-choice advocates and religious groups to seek similar programs in other states.[19] Supporters of the ruling said the ruling would enhance religious liberties and "school choice."[19] Indeed, in the wake of Carson, Vermont settled a lawsuit with the Institute for Justice to permit religious options in its voucher program.[21]
Many critics believe that the ruling in this case is a "further erosion" of the separation of church and state.[9]
Steve Vladeck of CNN wrote that this ruling would put state "government[s] in the awkward position of having to choose between directly funding religious activity or not providing funding at all".[19]