Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Decision Date27 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. 00-1751.,00-1751.
Citation536 U.S. 639
PartiesZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. <I>v.</I> SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program gives educational choices to families in any Ohio school district that is under state control pursuant to a federal-court order. The program provides tuition aid for certain students in the Cleveland City School District, the only covered district, to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing and tutorial aid for students who choose to remain enrolled in public school. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate, as may public schools in adjacent school districts. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children. The number of tutorial assistance grants provided to students remaining in public school must equal the number of tuition aid scholarships. In the 1999-2000 school year, 82% of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation, none of the adjacent public schools participated, and 96% of the students participating in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line. Cleveland schoolchildren also have the option of enrolling in community schools, which are funded under state law but run by their own school boards and receive twice the per-student funding as participating private schools, or magnet schools, which are public schools emphasizing a particular subject area, teaching method, or service, and for which the school district receives the same amount per student as it does for a student enrolled at a traditional public school. Respondents, Ohio taxpayers, sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The Federal District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The program does not offend the Establishment Clause. Pp. 648-663.

(a) Because the program was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system, the question is whether the program nonetheless has the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 222-223. This Court's jurisprudence makes clear that a government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. See, e. g., Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388. Under such a program, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients, not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits. Pp. 648-653.

(b) The instant program is one of true private choice, consistent with the Mueller line of cases, and thus constitutional. It is neutral in all respects toward religion, and is part of Ohio's general and multifaceted undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children in a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion and permits participation of all district schools — religious or nonreligious — and adjacent public schools. The only preference in the program is for lowincome families, who receive greater assistance and have priority for admission. Rather than creating financial incentives that skew it toward religious schools, the program creates financial disincentives: Private schools receive only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third that given to magnet schools, and adjacent public schools would receive two to three times that given to private schools. Families too have a financial disincentive, for they have to copay a portion of private school tuition, but pay nothing at a community, magnet, or traditional public school. No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement. Nor is there evidence that the program fails to provide genuine opportunities for Cleveland parents to select secular educational options: Their children may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a nonreligious private school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school. The Establishment Clause question whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a scholarship and then choose a religious school. Cleveland's preponderance of religiously affiliated schools did not result from the program, but is a phenomenon common to many American cities. Eighty-two percent of Cleveland's private schools are religious, as are 81% of Ohio's private schools. To attribute constitutional significance to the 82% figure would lead to the absurd result that a neutral school-choice program might be permissible in parts of Ohio where the percentage is lower, but not in Cleveland, where Ohio has deemed such programs most sorely needed. Likewise, an identical private choice program might be constitutional only in States with a lower percentage of religious private schools. Respondents` additional argument that constitutional significance should be attached to the fact that 96% of the scholarship recipients have enrolled in religious schools was flatly rejected in Mueller. The constitutionality of a neutral educational aid program simply does not turn on whether and why, in a particular area, at a particular time, most private schools are religious, or most recipients choose to use the aid at a religious school. Finally, contrary to respondents' argument, Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756a case that expressly reserved judgment on the sort of program challenged here — does not govern neutral educational assistance programs that offer aid directly to a broad class of individuals defined without regard to religion. Pp. 653-663.

234 F. 3d 945, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. O`CONNOR, J., post, p. 663, and THOMAS, J., post, p. 676, filed concurring opinions. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 684. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 686. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined, post, p. 717.

Judith L. French, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 00-1751. With her on the briefs were Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, David M. Gormley, State Solicitor, Karen L. Lazorishak, James G. Tassie, and Robert L. Strayer, Assistant Attorneys General, Kenneth W. Starr, and Robert R. Gasaway. David J. Young argued the cause for petitioners in No. 00-1777. With him on the briefs were Michael R. Reed and David J. Hessler. Clint Bolick, William H. Mellor, Richard D. Komer, Robert Freedman, David Tryon, and Charles Fried filed briefs for petitioners in No. 00-1779.

Solicitor General Olson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Gregory G. Garre, Robert M. Loeb, and Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr.

Robert H. Chanin argued the cause for respondents Simmons-Harris et al. in all cases. With him on the brief were Andrew D. Roth, Laurence Gold, Steven R. Shapiro, Raymond Vasvari, Elliot M. Mincberg, and Judith E. Schaeffer. Marvin E. Frankel argued the cause for respondents Gatton et al. in all cases. With him on the brief were David J. Strom, Donald J. Mooney, Jr., and Marc D. Stern.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Ohio has established a pilot program designed to provide educational choices to families with children who reside in the Cleveland City School District. The question presented is whether this program offends the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.

There are more than 75,000 children enrolled in the Cleveland City School District. The majority of these children are from low-income and minority families. Few of these families enjoy the means to send their children to any school other than an inner-city public school. For more than a generation, however, Cleveland's public schools have been among the worst performing public schools in the Nation. In 1995, a Federal District Court declared a "crisis of magnitude" and placed the entire Cleveland school district under state control. See Reed v. Rhodes, No. 1:73 CV 1300 (ND Ohio, Mar. 3, 1995). Shortly thereafter, the state auditor found that Cleveland's public schools were in the midst of a "crisis that is perhaps unprecedented in the history of American education." Cleveland City School District Performance Audit 2-1 (Mar. 1996). The district had failed to meet any of the 18 state standards for minimal acceptable performance. Only 1 in 10 ninth graders could pass a basic proficiency...

To continue reading

Request your trial
224 cases
  • DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 31, 2010
    ...The context of a challenged government action is relevant and useful to endorsement analysis. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 655, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002) (“the reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware of the history and context underlying a......
  • Mercier v. City of La Crosse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • February 3, 2004
    ...the benefit is an incidental effect of a neutral program that does not take religion into account, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 652, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002) ("where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a ......
  • In re Navy Chaplaincy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 30, 2018
    ...underlying a challenged program.’ " In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d at 430 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Zelman v. Simmons–Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 655, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002) ).15 As in the equal protection context, to satisfy the "effects" test with statistical evidence alone, ......
  • Carson v. Makin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 29, 2020
    ...decided Supreme Court cases: Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004), and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002). In Locke, the Supreme Court rejected a free exercise challenge to a law that barred state scholarship aid from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
90 books & journal articles
  • Awakening the Law: Unmasking Free Exercise Exceptionalism
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 72-5, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...use of scholarship funds "at an institution where they are pursuing a degree in devotional theology"); see also Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 662-63 (2002) (ruling that while publicly funded vouchers could be used to send children to religious schools, there was no requirement in......
  • Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Federalism and Faith
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 56-1, 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...rights. But I cannot accept its use to oppose neutral programs of school choice through the incorporation of the Establishment Clause. 536 U.S. 639, 678-80 (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring). 159 542 U.S. at 45-54. 160 Id. at 46. 161 Id. at 46-49 (citing 505 U.S. 577 (1992)). 162 Id. at 49-50 ......
  • Beyond the Conventional Establishment Clause Narrative
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 28-02, December 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...In their Establishment Clause pronouncements. See, e.g., Locke v. Davey, 124 S. Ct. 1307, 1314 n.6 (2004); Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 711 (Souter, J., dissenting); Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 870 n.1 (2000) (Souter, J., dissenting); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, ......
  • Religion in the military: navigating the channel between the religion clauses.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 59, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...(cross). (13) Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) (decided on "standing" grounds). (14) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (15) Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001). (16) Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). (17) Mitchell v. H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 provisions
  • PL 108-199, HR 2673 – Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
    • United States
    • U.S. Public Laws
    • January 1, 2004
    ...assistance to low-income children in a demonstrably failing public school system is constitutional under Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance to a broad class of citizens who direct government aid to religious and s......
  • PL 112-10, HR 1473 – Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
    • United States
    • U.S. Public Laws
    • January 1, 2011
    ...the education of their children. (5) The DC OSP was established in accordance with the Supreme Court decision, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), which found that a program enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to low-income children in a demo......
  • Chapter 163, SB 137 – Obsolete Education Statutes
    • United States
    • Colorado Session Laws
    • January 1, 2006
    ...of article IX or section 34 of article V of the state constitution; and (c)Meets the standards set forth in both Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L. Ed. 2d. 604 (2002), and Americans United for Separation of Church and State Fund, Inc. v. State, 648 P.2d 1072 (Col......
  • D.C. Code § 38-1853.02 Findings
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Code 2023 Edition Division VI. Education, Libraries, and Public Institutions Title 38. Educational Institutions Subtitle IV-A. Public Education - School Choice Chapter 18n. Scholarships For Opportunity and Results
    • January 1, 2023
    ...to the education of their children.(5) The DC OSP was established in accordance with the Supreme Court decision, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), which found that a program enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to low-income children in a de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT