​When Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee to be Education Secretary, arrives at the Senate for her upcoming confirmation hearing, she will be the prospective leader of a paradigm shift in how America’s children are taught.
 
President Trump made this clear on Thursday by directing the Secretaries of Education and Labor to review their discretionary grant programs and submit plans to “expand education freedom for America’s families and teachers.”
 
If confirmed as Secretary, McMahon will issue guidance to states on how to use federal funds for school choice. Other agencies, from the Department of Defense to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Health and Human Services will also look to repurpose block grants to “expand educational choice.”
 
This is a bold move that puts existing federal grants behind the exploding school choice movement. Twelve states have recently adopted some form of universal school choice. Texas appears poised to become the next sometime this year.
 
Now, thanks to this brisk action by the Trump Administration, existing funding will be redirected to bolster educational competition. Though the president’s actions were denounced by Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers “as a direct attack” on public schools, the evidence says otherwise. Out of 28 studies that explored the causal relationship between school choice and the performance of public schools, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems.
 
School choice fulfills the promise of the First Amendment by allowing parents to exercise their right to extend their values across generations. Competition brings out the best in all of us. Now federal agencies will be competing to be the best in realizing the president’s school choice vision.

​The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond to determine whether it violates the Free Exercise Clause to deny state funds to an online Catholic school solely because of their religious character. This is the latest in a string of cases in which the Court has had to push back on states’ unequal treatment of religious schools. It is also an opportunity to functionally invalidate the unconstitutional Blaine Amendments that litter many state constitutions. Above all, it is a chance for parents to reaffirm their right to choose schools that align with their values.
 
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the state’s Charter School Board to rescind a contract with the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. According to the court, the Board’s approval of public funding for a sectarian school violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the Establishment Clause. As we wrote at the time, the opinion is “buttoned down, logical, and eminently overturnable,” relying on “that state’s version of a Blaine Amendment, a movement that gathered momentum when American politics was infected with anti-Catholic bigotry.”
 
Blaine Amendments in 37 states prohibit public funding for schools run by religious organizations. They were passed in an era when Catholics faced wanton discrimination in a largely Protestant America. Doubts as to their unconstitutionality were raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Espinoza v. Montana (2020), which found that state-based scholarship programs providing public funds for students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Court, quite specifically, took the Blaine Amendments to the woodshed, writing that they were “born of bigotry.”  
 
Congress should end the revolving door of state defiance of clear judicial precedent by overriding the Blaine Amendments and reiterating that Espinoza and the similarly reasoned Carson v. Makin meant what they said and remain the law. The Court has plenty of reasons to overturn the Oklahoma ruling. Oklahoma Justice Dana Kuehn’s dissenting opinion spells them out:
 
“St. Isidore would not become a ‘state actor’ merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 
Further, Judge Kuehn wrote:
 
“Contracting with a private entity that has religious affiliations, by itself, does not establish a State religion, nor does it favor one religion over another. Allowing St. Isidore to operate a charter school does not give it any preference over any other qualified entity, sectarian or otherwise.”
 
The Constitution’s prohibition of an established religion does not diminish the free exercise of religion. Religious schools must be free to apply for state funding to the extent that they meet mandated standards in English, math, history, science, and other subjects. Such allowances, in turn, will give more parents the opportunity to choose schools that reflect their values, the ultimate expression of the First Amendment.
 
We agree with Gov. Kevin Stitt, who said:
 
“This stands to be one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime. I believe our nation’s highest court will agree that denying St. Isidore’s charter based solely on its religious affiliation is flat-out unconstitutional.”
 
Stay tuned.

​On Tuesday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard opening arguments in St. Dominic v. Makin, a case that challenges Maine’s renewed attempt to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin. That 2022 opinion should have settled the question of the participation of religious schools in secular programs. It prohibited the exclusion of religious schools from Maine’s tuition assistance program “on the basis of their religious exercise.” But now, Maine has chosen, as we have said before, to go full Confederate in nullifying the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Here's the backstory: Maine has a tuition assistance program that for many years allowed parents to use government funds to send their children to the schools of their choice – whether religious or secular. Then, in 1981, the state began excluding religious institutions based on the conclusion that allowing such use violated the Establishment Clause. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002, the Supreme Court found that this constitutional interpretation was incorrect.
 
Maine then adopted a new strategy, continuing its exclusionary policy towards religious schools based on the sectarian “use” to which any governments funds might go. Twenty years later, the Court ruled again, concluding that “the prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination.”
 
True to form, Maine pivoted again, this time amending the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) to explicitly condition the receipt of state funds by religious institutions on compliance with state non-discrimination policies. The new law’s effect is to ensure that a religious school cannot accept tuition assistance if its beliefs and practices conflict with the state’s take on gender issues like traditional marriage.
 
Under the new law, a religious school cannot express preference in admissions for students of that same religion – a condition that applies to Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools. They must hire teachers whose views or lifestyles are inconsistent with school beliefs. And they must permit countervailing speech within school walls under a new “religious expression” rule that would require an allowance for “dissenting religious views” – even if those views completely undermine the school’s mission.
 
To borrow a quote from the Becket Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, this is a “poison pill” that continues the tuition exclusion in a different guise. Moreover, it’s an obstinate and cynical ploy that displays contempt for both the high Court and for the rule of law.
 
Maine’s maneuvering has real, harmful impacts on people like appellants Keith and Valori Radonis, who want only to send their children to a school that upholds their beliefs. As we’ve written about many times over, educating your children is among the most fundamental and consequential expressions of speech. Maine’s new policy puts the state squarely between families in need and their free exercise of religion and those beliefs.
 
As Becket explains in its opening brief, the new provisions are patently and quite obviously unconstitutional. First, they violate Carson “by simply re-enacting the same exclusionary practices in a different code section.” They “entangle Maine officials in judging the internal religious practices of religious schools ...” And they “violate the Free Speech Clause because they compel religious schools to speak in ways that are contrary to their beliefs and force them to include speakers who reject the schools’ core commitments.”
 
After Maine moved its exclusion policy to a different code section, one law professor wrote a piece in the New York Times entitled, “There’s a Way to Outmaneuver the Supreme Court, and Maine Has Found It.” Now, the state finds itself back in the principal’s office on the same issue with likely the same result. The First Circuit should find for the plaintiffs, upholding the First Amendment and the rule of law.

​Texas is politically poised this year to become the last big red state to adopt a statewide public school choice program. Vince Bielski of RealClear Investigations surveyed the school choice movement in the aftermath of this development and reports that it is now ready to push into blue-state territory.
 
Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania is the Democrat most likely to break open the first cracks in the blue wall public teachers unions have erected against school choice. After being compelled to line-item veto a voucher proposal for low-income children, Gov. Shapiro called school choice “unfinished business.” Bielski reports:
 
“The fate of another voucher program [in Pennsylvania] may depend on whether a few Democrats are willing to break with House leadership and risk political payback, according to a veteran of Pennsylvania battles … ‘Governor Shapiro has a chance to deliver on his promise to expand educational opportunity for underserved children,’ said Tommy Schultz, CEO of the advocacy group American Federation for Children. ‘It will require bold leadership to bring House leadership to the table and get it done.’”
 
Opponents of school choice charge that vouchers for private schools will lead to two separate school systems, leading to the defunding of public schools. However, Bielski reports that such programs “have been restricted mainly to lower-income parents who may be dissatisfied with lax discipline and lackluster instruction – problems exacerbated by the pandemic – at their public schools. All told, private choice programs enroll only about 2% of all K-12 students.”
 
That number shows there is both room for competition to inspire improvement among public schools, and much more room for private school choice in states both red and blue.

​James G. Blaine is little remembered today, but in post-Civil War America he bestrode the American political landscape like a colossus. A U.S. Senator, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, and Republican nominee for President, Blaine (derided by Democrats as the “continental liar from the State of Maine”) was one of those figures – like Daniel Webster or Henry Clay – who were more significant than many presidents.
 
Blaine’s legacy lives on as eponymous “Blaine Amendments” – language in state constitutions that prohibits public funding for schools run by religious organizations. These are the children of Blaine’s proposed but failed U.S. constitutional amendment crafted when many Americans panicked about Irish and Italian immigrants, corrupting America with their “Romanism.” The blatantly anti-Catholic purpose of Blaine’s proposal came at a time when most public schools had an overtly Protestant bent.
 
Blaine amendments are now in the constitutions of 37 states. They remain consequential, denying equal access to public funding for schools run by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations that meet state-mandated standards in English, science, math, and other core subjects.
 
This is problematic for South Carolina, which recently passed the Education Savings Trust Fund Act, which would have allowed low-income families to use state-provided scholarships for private school tuition. But the South Carolina Constitution prohibits using public funds for the “direct benefit” of private educational institutions. The South Carolina Supreme Court was forced to strike down this school voucher program, dealing a harsh blow to families seeking educational freedom.
 
That decision has left families scrambling to find alternatives after their financial support was cut off mid-school year. David Warner, a South Carolina father, described the ruling as “a kick in the stomach,” knowing he now has to tell his son in sixth grade he can no longer afford the school he loves.
 
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a vocal advocate for school choice, has called school choice the “civil rights issue of our time.” His words resonate with many South Carolina families who view school choice not just as an educational policy, but as a step toward opportunity and empowerment. For many, the local public school might not provide an environment for their children that allows for the transmission of their values. Many public schools are often not even safe.
 
The Protect The 1st Foundation in our amicus brief explained the civil rights principles at stake in this program before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Our brief told the court that the scholarship program “promotes the exercise of First Amendment-protected religious and speech rights by enabling families who could not otherwise afford to do so to choose among a wide variety of schools and find those that align with their own varied beliefs and values …
 
“It is no surprise, then,” Protect The 1st explained, “that the data show that school choice programs like the one challenged here lead to higher graduation rates, better test scores, and greater civic engagement – not only for students who receive scholarships through the program, but also for students who choose to remain in public schools.”
 
If this sounds improbable, consider the research of Alexander William Salter, an economics professor at Texas Tech University. Salter reports that out of 28 studies that explore the link between school choice and district-school outcomes, “25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam-dunk.”
 
For now, the South Carolina court’s decision closes the door on a program that gave 5,000 students a chance to explore other educational opportunities. Yet, while the court acknowledged there is public demand for school choice, it also pointed out that any change must come from amending the state constitution.
 
South Carolina has amended its constitution 100 times since 1974, including twice in 2022. But even if the Palmetto State removes its Blaine Amendment and opens the way forward for needy children to get a quality education, there will be 36 other states in which quality schools that meet state standards are officially discriminated against.
 
Congress can resolve this matter by overriding Blaine Amendments, enshrining recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions (Espinoza v. Montana and Carson v. Makin) into national law. That ought to be issue one for Speaker Mike Johnson, the new Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon.

​The decision by the Texas State Board of Education to offer the optional Bluebonnet curriculum, rich in Christian imagery and tropes, is a kind of Rorschach test. Those more sensitive to the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment see it as foisting one religion on an increasingly diverse population of students. Those who relish the “free exercise” clause see it as exposing all children to common cultural touchstones in what was until recently an overwhelmingly Christian nation.
 
Religion has undeniably shaped American society, from the Puritans’ foundational settlements to the Great Awakening’s moral fervor and the influence of Presbyterianism on the structure of the U.S. Constitution. In the 19th and 20th centuries, churches played key roles in the abolitionist and civil rights movements. Including the lore of these movements in history classes enriches students’ understanding of the nation’s development and diverse social fabric.
 
“In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” said Will Hickman, a Republican who sits on the Texas Board of Education told The Texas Tribune. He has a point. Common phrases like “pearls before swine,” “turn the other cheek,” and “salt of the earth,” are sayings of Jesus that have become cultural bywords in ordinary American conversation.
 
More difficult questions arise when religious content goes beyond lessons about history and literature. One Bluebonnet lesson about fairness, for example, includes the story of The Good Samaritan, Jesus’ parable about helping people across barriers of background and religion. That story too is an important part of American moral culture.  But some Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu parents might see such moral parables not as helping everyone share a common culture, but as an effort by conservative Christians to keep Christianity at the center of American identity. It’s the kind of issue that deserves to be discussed among all concerned stakeholders, at the local level, with people on all sides doing their best to understand others’ concerns and to develop approaches that are as inclusive as possible and that avoid unnecessary offense to their neighbors’ sensibilities. 
 
Wherever one comes down in that debate, one inclusive, and therefore laudable, approach to religious expression is to expand school choice, which Texas is ready to embrace.
 
Following the recent election, the Texas legislature now has a majority prepared to implement a universal school voucher program for the nation’s second most populous state. Such a program would give parents the freedom to select schools that align with their values, whether they seek religious or secular instruction. Gov. Greg Abbott is championing this initiative, recognizing the growing demand for educational options.
 
The foundation for this shift was laid by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Carson v. Makin. The Court ruled that if a state offers funding to private secular schools, it cannot exclude religious schools. This principle ensures families can choose schools – religious or secular – that best meet their needs. In Texas, vouchers will allow children to attend quality private schools as long as they meet state standards in core subjects like science, civics, and math.
 
Religious schools, unlike public institutions, can easily integrate faith-based teachings into their curricula. Without generating internal controversy, for example, they may display and teach such things as the Ten Commandments as part of their broader mission. Far from undermining pluralism, this model respects it, allowing families to pursue education aligned with their beliefs while maintaining accountability to state standards in key subjects.
 
This seems to us the better way to respect both diversity and the maximum freedom of expression under the First Amendment, and in so doing allowing parents to share their values – religious or not – across generations.

President Trump’s appointment of Linda McMahon as U.S. Secretary of Education sends a single and unmistakable signal – this incoming administration will prioritize the expansion of school choice, and associated parental rights, across the country.
 
Opponents of McMahon’s appointment have already called her credentials into question, pointing to her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment as too undignified for a Cabinet secretary, disqualifying for any role that does not involve pointed elbow drops or figure-four leglocks. McMahon’s defenders cite her business acumen – building WWE into a multibillion-dollar powerhouse – as a demonstration that she is a manager and a leader.
 
What the oppositional hand-wringing actually boils down to is a fundamental policy disagreement between the educational establishment and the prospective new leader of the Department of Education. McMahon is an outspoken proponent of parental school choice, having co-founded the America First Policy Institute, in part, to advocate for “putting parents and students – not bureaucrats, unions, or politicians – in charge of educating our Nation’s next generation.”
 
As Protect The 1st has often pointed out, parents’ ability to choose how to educate their children is a fundamental First Amendment right, because it determines whether and to what extent parents will be able to extend their values (including those based on religion or belief) across generations. Parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and to select an education that reflects their values.
 
It's an overdue blessing, therefore, that support for school choice is on the upswing. Today, according to EdChoice, there are 75 school choice programs operating across 33 states. A full quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. And in 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong majority backing across all political parties and demographics. Conversely, a 2024 Pew Research study shows that more than one-half of Americans say that traditional, public K-12 education is heading in the wrong direction.
 
With McMahon at the helm of the Department of Education against the backdrop of a GOP-led Congress, chances are better than ever that we’ll see passage of the Educational Choice for Children Act. This measure would provide tax credits for charitable contributions to organizations offering school choice scholarships.
 
In the meantime, we’re increasingly likely to see the nation’s second-largest state, Texas, join the broadening coalition fighting for the future of our children. In 2023, 21 Republicans joined 63 Democrats to vote down education savings accounts, a top priority for Gov. Greg Abbott. In 2025, 14 of those members are not returning to Austin, giving the governor an education choice majority in both chambers of the state legislature. 
 
Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that school choice is broadly supported among voters of both parties. November’s GOP sweep likely resulted in some part from the disconnect between Democrats and their constituents over our failing public education system. Democrats, simply put, need to listen to their core constituents, upset about public schools that have failed children for decades.
 
Until Democrats wake up – and PT1st hopes they will – the task of reform is left to elected conservatives. Regardless of party, we need political leaders who understand that the quality education and values we bequeath to our children are among the most important expressions of our core beliefs. McMahon’s nomination is nothing less than a “People’s Elbow” in favor of that proposition.  

​After extensive analyses of the recent election, let us suggest one more driver behind the dismal performance of Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats – their adamant refusal to listen to their constituents about school choice.
 
We’ve long appealed to Democratic politicians to be brave on school choice. For example, when Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois entertained modest tax breaks for school choice for needy children, they withdrew their support after being cuffed about the ears by the public teachers’ union.
 
How much longer can public unions bully elected officials to ignore the appeals of parents for more choice in education, especially from demographic groups long considered dependable Democratic voters? As the late economist Herb Stein said: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
 
Consider: Polling data from RealClear Opinion Research underscores that the growing bipartisan support for school choice crosses all demographic and political boundaries. In 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong backing from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
 
Minority support is especially pronounced: 73 percent of Black voters and 71 percent of Hispanic voters favor school choice. This surge in interest, especially among minority voters, likely contributed to a stronger minority turnout for Donald Trump, who has long championed school choice as a civil rights issue. Did Kamala Harris hurt herself by stiff-arming these voters who want better opportunities for their children?
 
The appeal of school choice lies in the frustrations many families feel toward public education systems that have struggled, especially in low-income and minority communities. Some public-school districts serving minority communities have a half-century record of graduating one class of students after another who are largely unprepared for success in adult life.
 
The legacy of underperformance in these schools has led many minority voters to demand alternatives, including charter schools and vouchers, that offer a more personalized approach to education. Protect The 1st advocates for these policies because they fulfill the ability of parents to exercise the First Amendment by extending their values to the next generation.
 
It is no mystery why school choice is sweeping the nation. One-quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. Texas is about to be next after the recent election added a solid majority to pass Gov. Greg Abbott’s school choice plan next year. The political landscape is shifting, and not just in red states. As long as Democrats consistently buckle to pressure from the government teachers union, they risk alienating a growing segment of an eroding voter base.
 
We urge elected Democrats to bravely reject political pressure from a special interest group. School choice is too important to be anything less than a bipartisan cause.

In a 3-0 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that California is violating the law by discriminating against religious parents and children in special-education programs.
 
That this ruling was needed at all in Loffman v. California Department of Education is remarkable. From Maine to California, states keep trying to isolate and defund private schools that are religious in character. Federal appellate courts have been consistent in laying down the law in upholding the First Amendment’s protection of “free exercise of religion.”
 
California, which channels funds from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), allows children with disabilities to receive a free appropriate education that meets their needs. The California Legislature, however, added a condition – that special education program funds could not be distributed to schools that also have a religious character. This precluded Jewish parents from choosing an Orthodox Jewish school for their disabled children.
 
California has the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that is unlikely to be successful. All of the precedents cited by Judges Kim Wardlaw, Morgan Christen, and Mark Bennett cited Supreme Court precedents that supported their ruling that California’s “nonsectarian requirement fails the neutrality test” in the treatment of religious schools.
 
“Today’s ruling is a tremendous victory for the Becket law firm, which stood by these Jewish parents through a long and difficult case,” said Gene Schaerr, general counsel of Protect The 1st. “This victory is also one more sign, if any were needed, that the First Amendment requires the neutral and fair treatment of religious schools. Equitable treatment of religious schools is the law of the land. It is long past time for some states to end their campaign of resistance to this clear application of constitutional principle.”
​

​As we’ve noted, the right of parents to choose their children’s schools is overwhelmingly supported by Americans from all demographic groups and both political parties.
 
There are two reasons for school choice’s popularity. The first is disgust at the performance of many traditional public schools. Public schools serving low-income and minority communities, often in inner-cities, have a 60-year track record of failing children, graduating generation after generation of illiterate and innumerate Americans who start adult life behind the eight-ball.
 
Now Joshua C. Robinson, a pastor in Pennsylvania who is the founder and CEO of Black Pastors United for Education, illustrates this point with startling statistics in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that “School choice is the civil-rights issue of our time.” Robinson writes:
 
“Among eighth-graders in 2022, 91 percent of black students, 86 percent of Hispanic students and 64 percent of white students weren’t proficient in math. In reading, 84 percent of black students, 79 percent of Hispanic students and 62 percent of white students weren’t proficient.”

Many apologists for the status quo shrug and blame the communities, the families, and the children. But it doesn’t have to be this way. A study from the Progressive Policy Institute, “Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling Up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains,” counters the idea that charter schools “somehow drain legacy schools of the ‘best’ students and resources, to the detriment of those left behind.” PPI reports:
 
“In all ten cities where charter schools ‘reached a critical mass [more than 33 percent] in terms of student enrollment,’ performance improved citywide and was significant enough to start closing the performance gap with the wider state averages by 25-40 percent.”
 
PPI concludes:
 
“Evidently, the growth of enrollment in charter schools creates a positive competitive dynamic with the traditional district schools, which have to up their game to attract parents and students.”
 
What about the overall impact of all forms of school choice on public schools? We’ve previously reported that William Alexander Salter of Texas Tech University has demonstrated that on the question of the impact of school choice –
 
“Out of 28 studies that explore this question, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam dunk.”
 
And yet Democratic politicians across the board continue to stand firmly behind a special interest – the powerful teachers unions – to reject any form of school choice. For example, Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania both tiptoed toward support for limited tax breaks to supply private school scholarships for low-income students. But the teachers unions were powerful enough to hold both governors over the abyss of political annihilation – and forced them to reverse course.
 
But now the pressure on politicians is coming from two directions. Republicans are making unprecedented inroads among minorities on the issue of school choice, while Democrats alienate those same minorities by standing in front of the schoolhouse door. How much longer can leading Democrats continue to resist the passionate, urgent, and increasingly angry demands of core constituencies? As the late economist Herb Stein once said, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
 
We predict, as the evidence in favor of school choice mounts – from a progressive institute, no less – and the angry demands from families in bad school districts intensifies, that politicians’ wall of resistance will crumble. We believe powerful Democrats may soon jump on the school choice bandwagon. And when they do, their support and leadership will be something to celebrate.

​We recently reported on a poll from RealClear Opinion Research showing overwhelming bipartisan support for giving families the right to choose their schools. Some 77% of Democratic voters and 86% of Republican voters say they support school choice. Nearly 80% of Black Americans say the same.
 
This is happening because Americans see school choice as a natural extension of the guarantees of the First Amendment. School choice encourages true educational pluralism and eliminates top-down imposition of ideologies – which vary among the states – by monolithic, public-school systems. Choice allows all parents, religious or nonreligious, conservative or liberal, to find schools that best fit the values they want to pass on to their children. Competition for students is also demonstrated to improve educational outcomes, not just for private schools, but for public ones as well.
 
The Educational Choice for Children Act, which would provide tax credits for charitable donations to expand choices in quality education, recently picked up the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson. At least one of the two presidential candidates also supports school choice. Former President Donald Trump, echoing Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), recently called school choice a “civil rights issue.” Lexi Lonas Cochran in The Hill reports that Trump “has hinted at a universal school choice policy and has adopted language used by the movement in states that have offered education savings accounts …”
 
Trump has also said: “We want federal education dollars to follow the student, rather than propping up a bloated and radical bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.”
 
As the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, grapples for a way to capture the center, she might do well to see a late campaign opportunity here. In Illinois and Pennsylvania, Democratic governors have flirted with school choice vouchers, only to retreat after being threatened with political extinction by the most powerful lobby in the Democratic Party – the public teachers unions. This leaves many Democrats, especially Black voters in urban areas disgusted by the poor quality of public schools, increasingly disaffected by politicians who are more responsive to a special interests than to their constituents. This is the wedge that Donald Trump is driving deep into the Democratic polity.
 
If Vice President Harris were to at least support tax credits for private schools, she would close that wedge and prove to American voters that she is more of a centrist who can be trusted to be president. If Harris were to take that opportunity, then we would have two pro-school choice candidates for president. Given the growing support for school choice across the board, it is likely inevitable that national leaders in both parties will support school choice, in this election or the next.

​In a recent piece from the Wall Street Journal, EdChoice’s Martin Lueken takes on assertions from some critics of school choice that such programs “will destroy public school funding and worsen educational outcomes.” As Lueken lays out, the data simply don’t support those claims.
 
According to a new study authored by Lueken, who is EdChoice’s director of fiscal research, an analysis of 48 school choice programs across 26 states showed that they “generated cumulative net fiscal benefits for taxpayers worth between $19.4 billion and $45.6 billion.” That’s up to $7,800 per student or between $1.70 and $2.64 in taxpayer savings for every dollar invested – a good ROI by any metric.
 
Moreover, as Lueken notes, the total cost of school choice programs constitutes only 0.3% of state budgets – hardly an exorbitant figure, particularly given the net savings they generate.
 
To the extent such programs lure parents and children away from public schools, Lueken writes, those schools should benefit in the short term by allowing teachers to turn their focus more to the needs of individual students. Budget cuts, meanwhile, are unlikely to present an immediate issue because “[s]tates often have protections that shield districts from immediate financial losses due to declining enrollment.”
 
As Protect the 1st has written extensively, how you educate your children is one of the fundamental expressions of parental responsibility. As such, parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and select an education that reflects their values. Arguments to the contrary ignore not only the efficacy and economy of choice programs, but also neglect the First Amendment rights of parents.

​Protect The 1st is proud to announce that we have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing Mahmoud v. Taylor case (formerly Mahmoud v. McKnight). Our brief strongly defends the rights of parents to protect their children from mandatory instruction on gender and sexuality that conflicts with their religious beliefs. In collaboration with the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, we argue that the imposition of such curriculum without an opt-out provision violates core First Amendment rights.
 
This case presents a fundamental question: can public schools burden parents’ religious exercise by compelling elementary school children to participate in lessons on gender and sexuality without giving families the ability to opt out? The right to direct the upbringing of children has long been established as a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, dating back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Our brief emphasizes that these precedents should apply here, where the state's agenda contradicts parents’ most deeply held convictions.
 
The situation in Montgomery County, Maryland, has sparked outrage among religious communities. What began with the introduction of 22 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts has turned into a battleground for parental rights. These texts include material that many families find inappropriate for young children, yet the school district denies any possibility of opting out. The brief highlights that teachers are instructed to tell students that “at birth doctors merely ‘guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts.’” Such teachings directly conflict with many faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which hold clear beliefs about sexuality and gender.
 
Our brief warns of the “cataclysmic consequences” that will arise if parents lose the right to teach their children in accordance with their own religious and moral frameworks. The manipulation of a "captive and vulnerable audience"—children in public schools—amounts to an unconstitutional burden on parental rights. No school district has the right to force-feed children views on sexuality and gender that contradict the moral teachings of the home. The stakes are high: this is about more than sex education; it’s about whether the state can undermine the very foundation of moral and religious instruction in the home.
 
The Fourth Circuit’s decision to deny that a religious burden exists in these circumstances shows a troubling trend. Similar rulings in multiple circuits leave millions of parents without protection against forced instruction on sensitive matters like gender and sexuality. Religious families are left with no choice but to tolerate indoctrination, pay for private school, homeschool their children, or risk legal penalties. We are asking the Supreme Court to correct this error and restore the constitutional protections that prevent the state from intruding on the family’s role in educating children.
 
Our work in this case is part of a broader effort to safeguard First Amendment freedoms for all. Whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or non-religious, parents should have the right to determine the values their children are exposed to—particularly on issues as contentious as sexuality and gender. As our brief concludes, "the time to decide the question presented—and thereby prevent these harms—is now." PT1st looks forward to further developments in this case.

​Recently, the Club for Growth brought to our attention a salient piece by Russ Latino of Mississippi’s Magnolia Tribune Institute regarding the state’s passage of education savings account legislation.
 
In the article, Latino aptly and cogently refutes an assertion by new Superintendent of Education Lance Evans that “…if one single dollar of public money goes into a private school, then every single child in that school has to be subjected to the same assessment of every single student in public school.”
 
Latino’s tripartite response goes like this: 
 

• First, “the point of public funding of education is to educate children and prepare them for life, not fund any one system.”

 

• Second, “funds do not flow directly from the state to private schools, but rather, from the state to families — who are then free to make their own decisions about how best to educate their students.”

 

• And third, “education savings account programs in other states all have accountability measures built in, usually in the form of what is called a national norm reference test, which allows for a child’s progress to be compared to peers.” Requiring all private school students to participate in state testing, Latino argues, not only constitutes gross overreach but defeats the point of school choice in the first place.

 
Latino goes on to repudiate the argument that Mississippi’s school choice program is somehow unconstitutional. Like many states, Mississippi’s constitution prohibits the direct appropriation of public monies to private schools. And, also as in many other states, the issue of giving public funds to individual students has already been adjudicated – in Mississippi, some 80 years ago.
 
Latino writes, “In that case, the Court ruled that since [textbook aid] went to ‘individual pupils’ the private schools were not the direct beneficiaries of the program and it was constitutional. The decision and its logic have remained untouched.”
 
Kudos to Mr. Latino for combating the illogical arguments of school choice opponents with some unassailable logic of his own. His thoughts are well worth the read.

​With a contentious election looming, Republicans and Democrats can at least agree on one thing: school choice.
 
Per a poll from RealClear Opinion Research, 77% of Democratic voters and 86% of Republicans say that they support school choice. Nearly 80% of Black Americans say the same.
 
Speaker Mike Johnson recently declared his support for the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would provide tax credits for charitable donations to expand choices in quality education.
 
The legislation, sponsored by a large group of United States senators  and House members, would grant individuals and businesses tax credits for donating to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) that provide scholarships to eligible students for attending private or religious schools, homeschooling, or other non-public educational options.
 
The bill’s supporters persuasively show that private options are often superior choices over available public schools. An estimated two million students in any elementary or secondary education setting, including homeschooling, would be eligible to receive scholarships that can cover tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment necessary for enrollment or attendance in non-public educational options.
 
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries should bridge the partisan divide by working with Republicans to help young people and their parents express their First Amendment freedoms by choosing the educational forum and curriculum that is right for them.

​The recent decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court striking down that state's school voucher program has dealt a harsh blow to families seeking educational freedom. The court found that the Education Savings Trust Fund Act, which allowed low-income families to use state-provided scholarships for private school tuition, violates the South Carolina Constitution’s prohibition against using public funds for the “direct benefit” of private educational institutions.
 
The decision leaves families using the program to send their children to private, often religious, schools, scrambling to find alternatives after their financial support was cut off mid-school year. David Warner, a South Carolina dad, described the ruling as “a kick in the stomach,” knowing he now has to tell his son they can no longer afford the school he loves.
 
The court's ruling reflects a broader issue rooted in South Carolina's constitution, particularly its “Blaine Amendment.” This amendment, originally crafted in the 19th century to promote anti-Catholic bigotry, blocks access to educational choices for families of all stripes, religious or otherwise. The consequences are far-reaching; they limit the ability of parents, especially those with modest means, to choose a learning environment that aligns with their values.
 
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a vocal advocate for school choice, has called school choice the “civil rights issue of our time.” His words resonate with many South Carolina families who view school choice not just as an educational policy, but as a step toward opportunity and empowerment. For many, the local public school might not provide an environment for their children that allows for the transmission of their values. Such schools are often not even safe.
 
Protect The 1st Foundation, in our amicus brief, told the South Carolina Supreme Court:
 
“The Educational Scholarship Account program serves many public purposes. It promotes the exercise of First Amendment-protected religious and speech rights by enabling families who could not otherwise afford to do so to choose among a wide variety of schools and find those that align with their own varied beliefs and values, and that provide an educational environment in which their children will thrive consistently with those values.
 
“It is no surprise, then, that the data show that school choice programs like the one challenged here lead to higher graduation rates, better test scores, and greater civic engagement – not only for students who receive scholarships through the program, but also for students who choose to remain in public schools.”
 
For now, the court’s decision has closed the door on a program that gave 5,000 students a chance to explore other educational opportunities. Yet, while the court acknowledged there is public demand for school choice, it also pointed out that any change must come from amending the state constitution.
 
The good news is that amending the state constitution presents a path forward for advocates of educational freedom. South Carolina has amended its constitution 100 times since 1974, including twice in 2022. This shows that the people have the power to enact change when there is sufficient public will.
 
Although the ruling has halted the current school choice initiative, it has also energized its supporters. South Carolina’s history of constitutional amendments suggests that restoring educational freedom is achievable. Advocates should now focus on amending the state constitution, removing the outdated Blaine Amendment, and ensuring every parent, regardless of income, can choose the best educational path for their child.
 
As Sen. Scott rightly points out, the power to choose a quality education should not be a privilege but a fundamental right for all families. Now is the time for South Carolinians to act and make their voices heard.

A troubling update in Mahmoud v. Montgomery highlights the continued disregard for parental rights and religious freedom as Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland persists in refusing to allow religious parents an opt-out for their children being exposed to sexually charged materials. Recent statements from school board members during public meetings reveal personal hostility toward the religious traditions of many parents.
 
In one striking exchange, Board Member Lynne Harris dismissed a parent’s objections to forced participation in the curriculum, saying the parent’s position was ‘just telling that kid, ‘here's another reason to hate another person.’” Couldn’t a dismissive statement like that count as “another reason to hate another person?” This kind of rhetoric doesn't just shut down dialogue – it delegitimizes parents’ deeply held religious values.
 
Even more egregious was Harris’s comment to a Muslim student who voiced her discomfort with the LGBTQIA+ content for conflicting with her faith. Harris said she “felt kind of sorry” for the student and went so far as to speculate whether she was “parroting [the] dogma” of her parents. The disdainful tone and dismissal of a young student's sincere religious beliefs underscore the problem – MCPS is not merely advocating for inclusivity. It is actively marginalizing the religious convictions of those who dissent from its progressive agenda.
 
Beyond the disrespectful treatment of religious families at these meetings, MCPS also took actions that restrict open participation in the democratic process.
 
When Foldi v. Montgomery County plaintiffs Matthew Foldi and Bethany Mandel, who write on education issues, sought to attend the June 27th school board meeting to cover and protest the curriculum, they were turned away. Foldi, a journalist, was barred from entry despite identifying himself as a reporter. Denying media access to a public meeting where major decisions were being made, including the denial of parental opt-out requests, raises serious First Amendment concerns. Such restrictions erode the public’s trust in the transparency of their government institutions.
 
No less troubling is MCPS's action toward dissenters in the digital space.
 
In the lead-up to the June 27th meeting, Mandel was blocked from the “@MCPS-StaffPRIDE” social media account, which had been used to share content and events related to instruction on sexuality. Blocking Mandel from viewing or engaging with the account, which is run by staff linked to the school, prevented her from participating in public discourse around the very topics the school board was debating.
 
A Maryland judge upheld the right of the school district to exclude Foldi and Mandel from the meeting, since they had missed a sign-in cutoff. Such a rule was permitted since it was viewpoint neutral. But the court found MCPS was in error when it blocked them from an official social media account.
 
Protect The 1st Legal Advisor Eugene Volokh observes: “The Supreme Court's Lindke v. Freed decision held that individual officeholders sometimes act in their private capacities when maintaining a social media page, and thus aren't constrained by the First Amendment in deciding whom to block from that page. But it left unaffected the lower court cases that have held that when government bodies maintain social media pages, they are indeed constrained by the First Amendment and may not block readers and commenters based on viewpoint.”
 
There is a troubling pattern of disregard for the First Amendment within MCPS. No one is trying to cancel its educational materials. The issue is that religious families are being denied an opt-out option for highly sexualized material. This infringement is made worse by a broader silencing of dissent, in person and online.
 
At the heart of this story is the right of parents to weigh in on how education impacts their religious traditions, as well as the right of citizens to speak out on matters of public concern. MCPS’s actions, both in its meetings and online, reflect a broader pattern of encroachment on First Amendment rights that should alarm everyone, regardless of their views on the underlying issues.
 
Protect The 1st will continue to monitor this story.

Last week, the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee passed the Educational Choice for Children Act, which provides tax credits for charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations that would allow children from low-income families to attend private or religious K-12 schools.
 
Simply put, this bill would allow millions of American children to attend the highest-quality, most suitable school that serves the First Amendment rights of their families by aligning with their values.
 
We urge you to contact your U.S. Representative through this link with this message:
 
“Please call for a House vote this week on the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), bill # H.R. 9462, and give it your vote and strongest support.”

This week, the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee passed the Educational Choice for Children Act, which provides tax credits for charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations that would allow children from low-income families to attend private or religious K-12 schools.
 
Simply put, this bill would allow millions of American children to attend the highest-quality, most suitable school that serves the First Amendment rights of their families by aligning with their values.
 
We urge you to contact your U.S. Representative through this link with this message:
 
“Please call for a House vote on the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), bill # H.R. 9462, and give it your vote and strongest support."

​On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee took a big step forward in expanding school choice nationwide by marking up and passing the Educational Choice for Children Act by a vote of 23-16. This is the furthest a school choice measure has ever advanced in Congress. With strong support from the House majority, this bill has a promising chance of passing the Senate next year, potentially becoming a landmark in the movement for educational freedom.
 
The Educational Choice for Children Act aims to provide tax credits for charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) that support needy children. These scholarships can be used for private or religious schools, homeschooling, and other non-public educational options. The legislation includes express protections for religious schools, ensuring that parents can choose a learning environment consistent with their beliefs without fear of government interference.
 
Notably, the bill includes safeguards to prevent federal, state, or local government entities from exerting control over private or religious schools. It also prohibits discrimination against educational institutions based on their religious character, providing a robust defense of religious freedom in education. This bill advances the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, reinforcing the right of parents and families to freely exercise religious belief.
 
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) said during the hearing, “The credit will create a new pathway to fund scholarships and open new opportunities for countless families to have a say in where they want to send their children to school and tailor their education to their specific needs.”
 
With a quarter of all states now having comprehensive or universal school choice policies, this movement is spreading across the country like a prairie fire. Protect The 1st has been hard at work alongside allies, coalition partners, and leaders on Capitol Hill to promote this legislation in Washington, D.C., as well as the states. We support the national, bipartisan movement in favor of school choice because the ability to choose a school that aligns with one’s values – whether secular or religious – is one of the most profound expressions of the First Amendment we can make.
 
If passed, the bill would pave the way for millions of students to access better educational opportunities that align with their values and needs. As Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a key proponent of the bill, declared that school choice is “a civil rights issue,” giving parents the freedom to choose the best education for their children, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
 
With the growing support for school choice, this bill can be a historic step toward expanding educational freedom in the United States. It reflects a commitment to empowering parents and enhancing educational options for all children, reaffirming the importance of the First Amendment in safeguarding individual rights in education.
 
The path forward remains challenging, but the momentum behind this bill is unmistakable.

​Maine is openly defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin by forcing religious schools to comply with a state antidiscrimination law in order to receive state tuition funds. This action directly contradicts and attempts to nullify the Supreme Court's decision that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly available tuition assistance programs solely because they are religious.
 
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin, which Protect The 1st supported with an amicus brief, was a significant win for religious liberty. The Court decided that Maine's exclusion of religious schools from its tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision followed precedents like Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which established that states cannot discriminate against religious entities in public benefit programs.
 
Despite these clear directives, Maine lawmakers amended state laws to impose new conditions that effectively continue the exclusion of religious schools. Maine now requires all schools participating in the tuition program to comply with the Maine Human Rights Act. For many religious schools, these requirements conflict with their traditional religious beliefs about sexuality, making participation impossible.
 
Maine’s actions are a clear attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's decision by creating a new set of rules specifically targeting religious institutions. By imposing conditions that contradict the faith of religious schools, the state seeks to maintain their exclusion from public funding, which undermines the constitutional mandate.
 
Two lawsuits have already been filed challenging Maine's new rules, arguing that the state’s policy violates constitutional rights. The cases, brought by Crosspoint Church in Bangor and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, highlight the ongoing conflict between state law and the Supreme Court’s ruling. The plaintiffs argue that Maine's policy is designed to discriminate against religious schools.
 
The state's resistance goes beyond policy disagreement: It attacks the very principle of religious liberty. By enforcing a policy already struck down by the Supreme Court, Maine penalizes religious exercise and undermines parents' rights to choose a religious education for their children. This act of government overreach must be addressed to uphold constitutional rights.
 
Maine’s defiance also puts it at odds with the supremacy of the federal government and the Supreme Court – a principle that many young men from Maine gave their lives to uphold. States cannot be permitted to nullify federal law through legal maneuvering.
 
Courts must ensure that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are respected. Maine’s defiance must be corrected to prevent further erosion of religious freedom.

​We’ve already heard a lot of rowdy speech from the two vice-presidential candidates, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Republican U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance. Would they be as generous in applying the First Amendment to others as they do to themselves?
 
Tim Walz, who, despite correct opinions regarding the tragedy of Warren Zevon being left out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, hasn’t been as on the money when it comes to which types of speech are protected and which are not. In 2022, Walz said on MSNBC:
 
“There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth, where the voting places are, who can vote, who's able to be there….”
 
As PT1st senior legal advisor Eugene Volokh points out in Reason: “Walz was quite wrong in saying that ‘There's no guarantee to free speech’ as to ‘hate speech.’ The Supreme Court has made clear that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment (and see here for more details). The First Amendment generally protects the views that the government would label ‘hateful’ as much as it protects other views.”
 
Legal treatment of misinformation is more complicated. In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court held that lies “about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like” are largely constitutionally protected. Libel, generally, is not – though, in a defamation case, a public official can only succeed in their claim if they can show that a false statement was published with “actual malice” – in other words, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Categories of intentional misinformation that are patently not protected include lying to government investigators and fraudulent charitable fundraising.
 
Walz may be on firmer ground when it comes to lies about the mechanics of voting – when, where, and how to vote. Thirteen states already ban such statements. As Volokh writes, “[I]f limited to the context that Walz seemed to have been describing – in the Court's words, ‘messages intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures’ – Walz may well be correct.”
 
On freedom of religion, Walz’s record as governor is concerning. During the pandemic lockdowns, the governor imposed particularly harsh restrictions on religious gatherings, limiting places of worship to a maximum of ten congregants, while allowing retailers to open up at 50 percent capacity. An ensuing lawsuit, which Walz lost, resulted in an agreement granting religious institutions parity with secular businesses.
 
Walz also signed a law prohibiting colleges and universities that require a statement of faith from participating in a state program allowing high school students to earn college credits. As the bill’s sponsor conceded, the legislation was intended in part to coerce religious educational institutions into admitting students regardless of their beliefs – diluting their freedom of association. That controversy is currently being litigated in court. Little wonder the Catholic League declared that “Tim Walz is no friend of religious liberty.”
 
The Knights of Columbus might agree – at least as pertains to the broader ticket. In 2018, during the federal judicial nomination hearing for Brian Buescher, then-Sen. Kamala Harris criticized the organization for its “extremist” (read: traditional) views on social issues. Harris also sponsored the “Do No Harm” Act, which would have required health care workers to perform abortions in violation of their religious beliefs. 
 
Regarding Vance, the former Silicon Valley investor is hostile to the speech rights of private tech companies (who certainly enjoy the same First Amendment protections as any other person or group). In March, the senator filed an amicus brief in support of the State of Ohio’s lawsuit against Google, which seeks to regulate the company as a common carrier. In his brief, Vance argues Google’s claim that it creates bespoke, curated search results that directly conflict with its past claims of neutrality. Sen. Vance writes:
 
“[Google’s] functions are essentially the same as any communications network: it connects people by transmitting their words and exchanging their messages. It functions just like an old telephone switchboard, but rather than connect people with cables and electromagnetic circuits, Google uses indices created through data analysis. As such, common carrier regulation is appropriate under Ohio law.”
 
Vance’s argument creeps in the direction of Texas and Florida laws that seek to regulate social media companies’ internal curation policies. Both laws were found wanting by the Supreme Court. The Court in a strongly worded remand on both laws wrote:
 
“[I]t is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression – to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks is biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences.”
 
Yet Vance also attempts to “un-bias” social media platforms, leaving little to no room for independent curatorial judgment.

On the plus side, Vance has cosponsored numerous bills aimed at curtailing government censorship, including the “Free Speech Protection Act,” which prohibits government officials from “directing online platforms to censor any speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” He also sponsored the PRESERVE Online Speech Act, which would force social media companies to disclose government communications urging the censoring or deplatforming of users.
 
As the election season progresses, we can hope for more clarity on the candidates’ positions regarding our First Amendment freedoms. It is already clear, however, that both candidates are far from purists when it comes to protecting other people’s speech.

​For the second time, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro had a chance to stand up for school vouchers to help children from low-income families escape failing public schools to find a quality education in a private school. For the second time, Gov. Shapiro chose what seems to be – superficially at least – the politically expedient path.
 
From The Wall Street Journal:
 
“The Governor has national ambitions, and the teachers unions that oppose vouchers could stand in the way of his chances for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. But he’d also have allies, such as the Black Pastors United for Education, who last month wrote him a letter calling for vouchers. On Friday they wrote him again, saying they never got a response to the first letter, and inviting him to discuss vouchers at a town hall. 
 
“For our lawmakers to disregard this issue of freedom,” says Joshua Robertson, a pastor in Harrisburg, “is unacceptable.” Citing the “dire” education situation in public schools, he adds: “We need a courageous Governor.”

​When Louisiana passed a new law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public classrooms, a debate began that will undoubtedly be resolved only in a federal court.
 
Defenders of the law point out that the Ten Commandments are foundational to Western civilization and much of American history. Doesn’t that justify their posting in terms of civic education?
 
We agree that stripping all religion out of American education would be ahistorical. One cannot teach children about the origins of the American nation or the forces that sparked the American Civil War and the civil rights movement a century later without exploring the role of religion. Even in this context, however, the Ten Commandments seems more like an effort to impart religious moral guidance than teaching civics.
 
Critics respond that the posters violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. Doesn’t that justify forbidding posting Judeo-Christian scripture? The American Civil Liberties Union contends that the Ten Commandments mandate constitutes an “unconstitutional religious coercion of students.” A federal court will have to determine if Louisiana’s Ten Commandment mandate violates the Establishment Clause under a historical understanding of similar laws at or near the time of the Bill of Right’s ratification.
 
What is getting lost is that Louisiana is taking another step that presents a better way forward. The state is fostering educational pluralism in a way that includes those who seek a religious education for their children. Louisiana recently expanded its school choice program to allow for vouchers for families to choose private schools.
 
The constitutionality of Louisiana’s school choice vouchers is enhanced by a Supreme Court decision, Carson v. Makin in 2022, and by other recent rulings holding that funding made available for secular schools must also be equitably available to religious schools. The new Louisiana vouchers will enable many children to attend quality private schools, whether religious schools or purely secular. All such schools must meet state standards in the teaching of science, history, civics, math, and other subjects.
 
Enhancing the right of parents to choose values they want to extend to their children – whether secular or religious – is a fruitful path that manages to thread the needle for pluralism, educational standards, and, for those who choose it, a religious education.