Minnesota
Prior to Espinoza, the Minnesota courts interpreted the state’s Blaine Amendment to distinguish between aiding students and schools, meaning all types of educational choice programs are options for state policymakers. Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has not specifically considered the constitutionality of generally available scholarship programs, reading the state court’s prior rulings and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Espinoza together, educational choice programs remain on firm constitutional footing in Minnesota.
Constitutional Provisions
Compelled Support Clause
“[N]or shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent .…” Minnesota Const. Art. I, § 16.
Blaine Amendments
“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.” Minnesota Const. Art. I, § 16.
“In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.” Minnesota Const. Art. XIII, § 2.
Relevant Case Law
Stark v. Independent School District, No. 640, 123 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997)
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that although a public elementary school’s students were all of one religion and the school adhered to its landlord’s request that technology not be used in the building, the Minnesota Constitution was not violated because no religious instruction occurred at the school. Therefore, although public funds were used to support the school, no public funds were expended in support of religious belief or instruction.
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga, 500 N.W.2d 136 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a statute allowing high school students to enroll in classes at public or private colleges at state expense did not violate Minnesota’s Compelled Support Clause or Blaine Amendments because any benefits flowing to religious colleges were indirect and incidental, students could attend either public or private colleges to take non-religious courses, the state reimbursed only 42 percent of actual costs, and religious colleges separated funds received to ensure that benefits were used for non-religious purposes.
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Minnesota’s tax deduction for education expenses, including the cost of tuition, textbooks and transportation, does not violate the federal Establishment Clause despite overwhelmingly benefiting parents with students in parochial schools. The deduction has the secular purpose of advancing education, is religiously neutral on its face, provides only indirect support to the schools, and does not foster excessive entanglement between religion and the government.
Minnesota Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Hawk, 232 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 1975)
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that bonds issued for the purpose of financing construction projects at institutions of higher education do not constitute an expenditure of public funds and accordingly do not violate the Minnesota Constitution’s Compelled Support Clause or Blaine Amendments.
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. State, 224 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 1974)
Applying now-outdated federal precedent, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a statute allowing a tax credit for private education costs violated the federal Establishment Clause on the now-rejected premise that tax credits are the functional equivalent of unrestricted cash payments to parents for sending their children to religious schools.
Americans United v. Independent School District, 179 N.W.2d 146 (Minn. 1970)
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a busing statute allowing private school students to ride on public school buses against a challenge brought under one of Minnesota’s Blaine Amendments (Article XIII, Section 2) because the program’s primary purpose and effect was neither to benefit nor support religious schools, despite providing incidental and indirect encouragement of private school attendance.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Tax Credits and Deductions for Educational Expenses
Minnesota Statutes Sections 290.01, .0674
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.
