Rhode Island
Rhode Island was hospitable to educational choice program prior to Espinoza because its courts follow federal Establishment Clause precedent when interpreting the state’s constitution. Together, Espinoza, which holds that a generally available scholarship program may not discriminate based on religion, and Zelman, which distinguishes between aiding students and aiding the schools they attend, mean that Rhode Island policymakers are free to pursue all types of educational choice programs.
Constitutional Provisions
Compelled Support Clause
“[N]o person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract .…” Rhode Island Const. Art. I, § 3.
Relevant Case Law
Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District v. Pontarelli, 460 A.2d 934 (R.I. 1983)
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a community was not required to pay for the education of resident students who chose to attend religiously affiliated high schools because the community had already provided for free education at certain public high schools outside the community.
Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norberg, 630 F.2d 855 (1st Cir. 1980)
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Rhode Island statute allowing a tax deduction for educational expenses violated the Establishment Clause. The deduction was overwhelmingly claimed by parents of students in parochial schools, which meant it had more than an incidental effect on the advancement of religion, according to the court. In addition, ensuring that only secular materials were deducted would result in excessive entanglement.
The U.S. Supreme Court later upheld a similar program in Minnesota in Mueller v. Allen.
Bowerman v. O’Connor, 247 A.2d 82 (R.I. 1968)
The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld a textbook loan program challenged under the state’s Compelled Support Clause. The Court reasoned that Rhode Island’s Compelled Support Clause is no more restrictive than the federal Establishment Clause and the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld a similar program in New York in Board of Education v. Allen.
General Finance Corp. v. Archetto, 176 A.2d 73 (R.I. 1961)
Examining federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld a statute granting tax exemption for religious buildings against a First Amendment challenge.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Corporate Tax Credit Scholarships
Rhode Island General Laws Sections 44-62-1 to -7
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.
