Three Cases, One Trend: Examining John Roberts' Approach To Church And State

Omar Yusuf

4 min read

Post on May 03, 2025

4.9

Share

The Carson v. Makin Case (2022): Religious School Funding and the Free Exercise Clause

Carson v. Makin (2022) centered on Maine's tuition program, which provided state funds for students to attend private schools but explicitly excluded religious schools. Parents challenged this exclusion, arguing it violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that Maine's program discriminated against religious schools, thus violating the Free Exercise Clause.

Roberts' Opinion: The Court reasoned that the state's refusal to fund religious schools, while funding secular private schools, constituted impermissible discrimination based on religious status. The opinion emphasized the principle of religious neutrality, arguing that the state must treat religious schools the same as comparable secular schools when providing public funds.

• Interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause: The Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause broadly, protecting the right of individuals to choose religious education without facing state-imposed financial penalties.
• Implications for state funding of religious institutions: The ruling has significant implications for state funding of religious institutions, potentially opening the door for increased public support of religious schools across the nation.
• Dissenting Opinions: Dissenting justices argued that the ruling disregarded the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion, and could lead to excessive entanglement between church and state.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022): Religious Expression and Public Employees

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) involved a high school football coach who engaged in personal prayer on the field after games. The school district disciplined him for violating its policy prohibiting religious displays on school property. Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the majority, found that the school district had violated the coach's First Amendment rights.

Roberts' Opinion: The Court's decision emphasized the importance of protecting religious expression, even for public employees, as long as such expression doesn't coerce others to participate. The majority argued that the coach's prayers were personal and did not disrupt school activities.

• Interpretation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause: The ruling broadly interpreted the Free Exercise Clause in the context of public employment, offering significant protection for personal religious practices.
• Implications for religious expression in public schools: The decision has major implications for religious expression in public schools and other government workplaces, potentially leading to increased accommodation of religious practices by employers.
• Dissenting Opinions: Dissenting justices argued that the coach's actions could be perceived as coercive by students and violated the Establishment Clause by creating the appearance of school endorsement of religion.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020): Religious School Choice and State Aid

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) concerned a Montana state scholarship program that provided funding for private schools but barred students from using the funds to attend religious schools. The Supreme Court ruled that this exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Roberts' Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion emphasized that Montana’s program discriminated against religious schools, thereby violating the Free Exercise Clause. The Court argued that a state cannot exclude religious schools from generally available public benefits simply because they are religious.

• Implications for state aid and religious schools: The ruling significantly impacts state aid for religious schools, preventing states from excluding religious schools from generally available programs.
• Interpretation of the Establishment Clause in relation to the Free Exercise Clause: The Court clarified the relationship between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, reinforcing that the Free Exercise Clause protects against discrimination based on religious identity.
• Dissenting Opinions: The dissenting justices argued that the ruling weakened the Establishment Clause and could lead to increased government entanglement with religion.

Conclusion: Understanding John Roberts' Approach to Church and State

Analysis of Carson v. Makin, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue reveals a discernible pattern in Chief Justice John Roberts' approach to church and state issues. These cases demonstrate a consistent trend toward expanding religious freedom and narrowing the scope of the Establishment Clause's restrictions on government support for religion. His decisions suggest a reinterpretation of the separation of church and state, prioritizing religious freedom, particularly the Free Exercise Clause, in cases involving state funding and public employee religious expression. While the implications are far-reaching, it is crucial to consider the dissenting opinions which raise concerns about potential overreach and the possibility of government endorsement of religion.

To further explore Chief Justice Roberts' nuanced approach to church and state issues, delve into the full texts of these landmark cases and the scholarly analysis that has followed. Understanding Chief Justice Roberts' interpretation of church and state is crucial for navigating the ongoing legal and social debates surrounding religious freedom in America.