Oklahoma
Espinoza buttresses the already favorable educational choice environment in Oklahoma. In Oliver v. Hofmeister, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a publicly funded scholarship program for students with disabilities under the state’s Blaine Amendment because the program was neutral toward religion and the aid was for the child. Espinoza reinforces that Oklahoma is free to enact any type of generally available educational choice program its policymakers believe will best serve the state’s students.
Constitutional Provisions
Blaine Amendment
“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.” Oklahoma Const. Art. II, § 5.
Education Articles
“Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.” Oklahoma Const. Art. I, § 5.
“Section thirteen in every portion of the State, which has been granted to the State, shall be preserved for the use and benefit of the University of Oklahoma and the University Preparatory School, one-third; of the normal schools now established, or hereafter to be established, one-third; and of the Agricultural and Mechanical College and Colored Agricultural and Normal University, one-third. The said lands or the proceeds thereof as above apportioned to be divided between the institutions as the Legislature may prescribe: Provided, That the said lands so reserved, or the proceeds of the sale thereof, or of any indemnity lands granted in lieu of section thirteen shall be safely kept or invested and preserved by the State as a trust, which shall never be diminished, but may be added to, and the income thereof, interest, rentals, or otherwise, only shall be used exclusively for the benefit of said educational institutions. Such educational institutions shall remain under the exclusive control of the State and no part of the proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of any lands granted for educational purposes, or the income or rentals thereof, shall be used for the support of any religious or sectarian school, college, or university, and no portion of the funds arising from the sale of sections thirteen or any indemnity lands selected in lieu thereof, either principal or interest, shall ever be diverted, either temporarily or permanently, from the purpose for which said lands were granted to the State.” Oklahoma Const. Art. XI, § 5.
Relevant Case Law
Oliver v. Hofmeister, 368 P.3d 1270 (Okla. 2016)
In a break with precedent that had formerly made Oklahoma hostile territory for voucher programs, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program did not violate the Blaine Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution because the program is neutral with respect to religion. Because the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and receives the aid in consideration for their not attending the public schools, the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian school.
Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission, 373 P.3d 1032 (Okla. 2015)
Plaintiffs sued, arguing that a Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds violated the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment. Even though the monument was donated by a private party, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the Blaine Amendment was violated because the monument supports religion.
Burkhardt v. City of Enid, 717 P.2d 608 (Okla. 1989)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a municipality’s purchase of a local community college and subsequent lease of the college back to its original owners did not violate Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment because the college was not religious. The Court noted that, even if it were, the city could still enter into the arrangement assuming it received sufficient consideration.
Meyer v. City of Oklahoma City, 496 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1972)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that maintenance by Oklahoma City of a cross on the city’s fairgrounds, at a slight but continuing public expense, did not violate Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment because it was not operated for the use or benefit of any particular religion or sect and its religious symbolism was obscured by the commercial atmosphere in which it was placed.
State ex rel. Town of Pryor v. Williamson, 347 P.2d 204 (Okla. 1959)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state’s Blaine Amendment did not prohibit the building and maintenance of a non-denominational, nonsectarian chapel on state grounds at public expense.
Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers, 171 P.2d 600 (Okla. 1946)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state’s Blaine Amendment did not prohibit the state from contracting with religious orphanages to provide care for needy children.
Board of Education for Independent School District No. 52 v. Antone, 384 P.2d 911, 913-14 (Okla. 1963); see also Gurney v. Ferguson, 122 P.2d 1002 (Okla. 1941)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that transporting pupils of parochial schools at public expense aided the schools and was forbidden by Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment.
Sharp v. Guthrie, 152 P. 203, 408 (Okla. 1915)
In upholding a city’s ability to sell a public park to a religious university for a dollar, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reasoned: “The city having the right to sell the property, and the consideration being adequate, it would make no difference whether the grantee be a sectarian institution or not, for a sale upon a sufficient consideration would not be within the prohibition of section 5, art. 2 of the Constitution [Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment].”
Oklahoma Railway Co. v. St. Joseph’s Parochial School, 127 P. 1087 (Okla. 1912)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a city franchise contract that required a tram line to provide half fare rides for all schoolchildren, whether they are public or parochial school students, does not violate the state’s Blaine Amendment. In its reasoning, the Court noted that children have a right to attend private school and that the reduced fares help promote the education of children. In addition, the Court stressed that the city could not discriminate on the basis of religion in a contract.
Connell v. Gray, 127 P. 417 (Okla. 1912)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the president of a state college could not require students to pay for a Christian athletic association as a condition of their enrollment without violating the state’s Blaine Amendment.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities
Oklahoma Statutes Title 70, Sections 13-101.1 to .2
Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Education Scholarships
Oklahoma Revised Statutes Title 68, Section 68-2357.206
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.