Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

CARSON, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF O. C., ET AL. v. 
MAKIN 

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

No. 20–1088.  Argued December 8, 2021—Decided June 21, 2022 

Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live 
in school districts that neither operate a secondary school of their own 
nor contract with a particular school in another district.  Under that 
program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their
child  to  attend,  and  the  school  district  transmits  payments  to  that 
school to help defray the costs of tuition.  Participating private schools
must meet certain requirements to be eligible to receive tuition pay-
ments, including either accreditation from the New England Associa-
tion of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) or approval from the Maine De-
partment  of  Education.    But  they  may  otherwise  differ  from  Maine 
public schools in various ways.  Since 1981, however, Maine has lim-
ited tuition assistance payments to “nonsectarian” schools. 

Petitioners sought tuition assistance to send their children to Ban-
gor  Christian  Schools  (BCS)  and  Temple  Academy.   Although  both 
BCS and Temple Academy are accredited by NEASC, the schools do
not qualify as “nonsectarian” and are thus ineligible to receive tuition
payments under Maine’s tuition assistance program.  Petitioners sued 
the commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, alleging that 
the “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause and
the  Establishment  Clause  of  the  First  Amendment,  as  well  as  the 
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The District 
Court rejected petitioners’ constitutional claims and granted judgment
to the commissioner.  The First Circuit affirmed. 

Held: Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally avail-
able  tuition  assistance  payments  violates  the  Free  Exercise  Clause. 
Pp. 6–18.

(a) The  Free  Exercise  Clause  of  the  First  Amendment  protects