Maryland
Maryland’s jurisprudence remains friendly to educational choice programs. The Maryland Constitution does not have a Blaine Amendment and in Horace Mann League, Inc. v. Board of Public Works, the state’s highest court even permitted direct grants to private educational institutions in certain circumstances.
Constitutional Provisions
Compelled Support Clause
“[N]or ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry ….” Maryland Decl. of Rights Art. 36.
Education Articles
“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.” Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 1.
“The School Fund of the State shall be kept inviolate, and appropriated only to the purposes of Education.” Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 3.
Relevant Case Law
Horace Mann League, Inc. v. Board of Public Works, 220 A.2d 51 (Md. 1966)
In upholding the constitutionality of state grants to colleges for academic buildings, the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court, held, “Thus it is seen that grants to educational institutions at a level where the state has not attempted to provide universal educational facilities for its citizens have never, in Maryland, been held to be impermissible under Article 36, even though the institutions may be under the control of a religious order.”
Johns Hopkins University v. Williams, 86 A.2d 892 (Md. 1952)
Upholding a loan issued by the state to a private university against a challenge brought under Article III, Section 34, which prohibits the state from securing private debts, the Maryland Court of Appeals held, “There is no prohibition in the Constitution against making appropriations to private institutions, provided the purpose is public, or semi-public, and thousands and thousands of dollars are appropriated out of the annual receipts every year.”
Board of Education v. Wheat, 199 A. 628 (Md. 1938), see also Adams v. County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County, 26 A.2d 377 (Md. 1942)
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that using public money to provide transportation for children attending private or parochial schools does not violate Maryland’s Compelled Support Clause because religious institutions would be aided only incidentally as the by-product of proper legislative action to secure the education of children.
St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys v. Brown, 45 Md. 310 (Md. 1876)
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that although the state could not appropriate money to an institution not under state control, it could contract with private and religious institutions for the care, training and education of state wards.
Horace Mann League, Inc. v. Board of Public Works, 220 A.2d 51 (Md. 1966)
In upholding the constitutionality of state grants to colleges for academic buildings, the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court, held, “Thus it is seen that grants to educational institutions at a level where the state has not attempted to provide universal educational facilities for its citizens have never, in Maryland, been held to be impermissible under Article 36, even though the institutions may be under the control of a religious order.”
Johns Hopkins University v. Williams, 86 A.2d 892 (Md. 1952)
Upholding a loan issued by the state to a private university against a challenge brought under Article III, Section 34, which prohibits the state from securing private debts, the Maryland Court of Appeals held, “There is no prohibition in the Constitution against making appropriations to private institutions, provided the purpose is public, or semi-public, and thousands and thousands of dollars are appropriated out of the annual receipts every year.”
Board of Education v. Wheat, 199 A. 628 (Md. 1938), see also Adams v. County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County, 26 A.2d 377 (Md. 1942)
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that using public money to provide transportation for children attending private or parochial schools does not violate Maryland’s Compelled Support Clause because religious institutions would be aided only incidentally as the by-product of proper legislative action to secure the education of children.
St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys v. Brown, 45 Md. 310 (Md. 1876)
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that although the state could not appropriate money to an institution not under state control, it could contract with private and religious institutions for the care, training and education of state wards.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today (BOOST)
[2016 Maryland Laws, R00A03.05]
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.
