Alaska
In Alaska, tax credit programs continue to be the most viable educational choice option. Alaska’s Blaine Amendment, Article VII, Section 1, prohibits the payment of public funds “for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Unfortunately, in 1979, Alaska’s supreme court, in Sheldon Jackson College v. State, construed the provision to prohibit post-secondary tuition grants to students attending private colleges. Like Section 1, the decision in Sheldon Jackson College does not distinguish between religion and nonreligion and prohibits the state from providing students with tuition assistance to attend any private college.
Since the Alaska Supreme Court decided Sheldon Jackson College, however, most state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that educational choice programs benefit students, and that any benefit to schools is incidental to private choice. Given the evolved legal precedent and the lack of related cases since Sheldon Jackson College, the state high court may be ready to draw a distinction between benefits that go directly to private schools and those, like scholarships, that go directly to students. Thus, while Espinoza does not directly change the law in Alaska, the state Supreme Court may be ready to recognize that educational choice programs benefit families, not institutions, and be willing to reverse its outdated precedent.
Constitutional Provisions
Blaine Amendment
“The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Alaska Const. art. VII, § 1
Relevant Case Law
Sheldon Jackson College v. State, 599 P.2d 127 (Alaska 1979)
The Alaska Supreme Court held that tuition assistance grants for students attending private colleges violates the state’s Blaine Amendment because (1) only private colleges benefit from the program, (2) the money effectively subsidizes private education, (3) the benefit provided is substantial, and (4) there is no distinction between giving money to the student and giving money to the school.
Matthews v. Quinton, 362 P.2d 932 (Alaska 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 517 (1962)
Viewing its Blaine Amendment as more restrictive than the federal Constitution, the Alaska Supreme Court held that transportation of private school students at public expense violates the Alaska Constitution.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
None
What You've Heard About Blaine Amendments
Blaine Amendments are controversial state constitutional provisions rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry. Their original purpose was to prevent the government from funding Catholic schools while preserving funding for America’s nascent “common” schools, which were predominantly Protestant and often inhospitable to Catholics. For decades, opponents of educational choice have employed Blaine Amendments—found in 37 state constitutions—as blunt weapons to impede and invalidate educational choice programs. However, thanks to a decades-long legal strategy tenaciously pursued by IJ, these state constitutional obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that the federal Constitution allows states to empower parents to choose religious and nonreligious schools alike when participating in educational choice programs so long as the state remains religiously neutral and parents exercise true private choice. But Zelman left open the question of whether the constitution would permit a state to exclude religious options from an educational choice program. On June 30, 2020, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court answered that open question and held that the federal Constitution forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.
The federal Constitution, wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the Espinoza majority, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana’s] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court’s holding was clear and unambiguous—and it applies to every state: While a “State need not subsidize private education[,] . . . once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
As a result of Espinoza, nearly every state is free to enact programs that will empower parents to choose the educational environment that is best for their own children. Of course, each state has a unique history, context, and constitutional provisions. That is why IJ has produced this 50-state guide. The guide analyzes each state’s constitution in light of Espinoza and explains how the ruling impacts policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.
What You Need to Know After Espinoza
Blaine Amendments are controversial state constitutional provisions rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry. Their original purpose was to prevent the government from funding Catholic schools while preserving funding for America’s nascent “common” schools, which were predominantly Protestant and often inhospitable to Catholics. For decades, opponents of educational choice have employed Blaine Amendments—found in 37 state constitutions—as blunt weapons to impede and invalidate educational choice programs. However, thanks to a decades-long legal strategy tenaciously pursued by IJ, these state constitutional obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that the federal Constitution allows states to empower parents to choose religious and nonreligious schools alike when participating in educational choice programs so long as the state remains religiously neutral and parents exercise true private choice. But Zelman left open the question of whether the constitution would permit a state to exclude religious options from an educational choice program. On June 30, 2020, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court answered that open question and held that the federal Constitution forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.
The federal Constitution, wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the Espinoza majority, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana’s] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court’s holding was clear and unambiguous—and it applies to every state: While a “State need not subsidize private education[,] . . . once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
As a result of Espinoza, nearly every state is free to enact programs that will empower parents to choose the educational environment that is best for their own children. Of course, each state has a unique history, context, and constitutional provisions. That is why IJ has produced this 50-state guide. The guide analyzes each state’s constitution in light of Espinoza and explains how the ruling impacts policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.
