Utah
The Utah Supreme Court has long interpreted its Blaine Amendments to be compatible with educational choice programs. The effect of Espinoza in Utah is to strengthen and reinforce existing legal precedent that Utah may not apply its Blaine Amendment to discriminate against religious options in choice programs.
Constitutional Provisions
Blaine Amendments
“[N]o public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment.” Utah Const. Art. I, § 4.
“Neither the state of Utah nor its political subdivisions may make any appropriation for the direct support of any school or educational institution controlled by any religious organization.” Utah Const. Art. X, § 9.
Education Articles
“The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state’s educational system, including: (a) a public education system, which shall be open to all children of the state; and (b) a higher education system. Both systems shall be free from sectarian control.” Utah Const. Art. X, § 1.
“The public education system shall include all public elementary and secondary schools and such other schools and programs as the Legislature may designate .…” Utah Const. Art. X, § 2.
“(1) There is established a permanent State School Fund which shall consist of
revenue from the following sources:
(a) proceeds from the sales of all lands granted by the United States to this
state for the support of the public elementary and secondary schools;
(b) 5% of the net proceeds from the sales of United States public lands lying
within this state;
(c) all revenues derived from nonrenewable resources on state lands, other
than sovereign lands and lands granted for other specific purposes;
(d) all revenues derived from the use of school trust lands;
(e) revenues appropriated by the Legislature; and
(f) other revenues and assets received by the fund under any other
provision of law or by bequest or donation.
(2) (a) The State School Fund principal shall be safely invested and held by the
state in perpetuity.
(b) Only the interest and dividends received from investment of the State
School Fund may be expended for the support of the public education
system as defined in Article X, Section 2 of this constitution …
(3) There is established a Uniform School Fund which shall consist of revenue
from the following sources:
(a) interest and dividends from the State School Fund;
(b) revenues appropriated by the Legislature; and
(c) other revenues received by the fund under any other provision of law or
by donation.
(4) The Uniform School Fund shall be maintained and used for the support of
the state’s public education system as defined in Article X, Section 2 of this
constitution and apportioned as the Legislature shall provide.” Utah Const.
Art. X, § 5.
“All revenue from taxes on intangible property or from a tax on income shall be used to support the systems of public education and higher education as defined in Article X, Section 2.” Utah Const. Art. XIII, § 5.
Relevant Case Law
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead, 870 P.2d 916 (Utah 1993)
The Utah Supreme Court held that the Salt Lake City Council’s policy of opening meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer does not offend the first Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 4) of the Utah Constitution because public funds are not used to directly aid any particular religion.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Carson Smith Scholarships for Special Needs Students
Utah Code Annotated Sections 53A-1a-701 to -710
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.
