Iowa
Iowa does not have a Blaine Amendment and already has two educational choice programs. In general, the Iowa Supreme Court interprets its state constitution in harmony with the federal Constitution. Given Espinoza and Zelman, Iowa policymakers are free to enact any type of religiously neutral educational choice program they determine will best serve Iowa’s children.
Constitutional Provisions
Compelled Support Clause
“[N]or shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.” Iowa Const. Art. I, § 3.
Relevant Case Law
Luthens v. Bair, 788 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D. Iowa 1992)
A federal district court in Iowa held that a state tax deduction for school expenses, including private school tuition, does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is available to parents regardless of whether their child attends a public, private or religious school, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not entangle the state with religion. Additionally, the court held that the benefits stemming from the deduction go to the parents of the children, not the schools they choose.
Rudd v. Ray, 248 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1976)
The Iowa Supreme Court held that a law providing for chaplains and religious facilities at state penitentiaries does not violate Iowa’s Compelled Support Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the federal Constitution because prisoners retain the ability to reasonably exercise their faith.
Knowlton v. Baumhover, 166 N.W. 202 (Iowa 1918)
The Iowa Supreme Court held that although it was called a “public school,” educational instruction given in a church building by a Catholic priest constitutes a “sectarian school” and Iowa’s Compelled Support Clause prohibits the local school board from supporting such a school with public funds.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Tax Credits for Educational Expenses
Iowa Code Section 422.12
Educational Opportunities Act (Individual Tax Credit Scholarships)
Iowa Stat. §422.11S
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.
