Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

17 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

hand,  have  an  interest  in  teaching  a  curriculum  that  ad-
vances the tenets of their religion.  And the schools are of 
course  entitled  to  teach  subjects  in  the  way  that  best  re-
flects  their  religious  beliefs.    But  the  State  may  disagree
with the particular manner in which the schools have de-
cided that these subjects should be taught.

This is a situation ripe for conflict, as it forces Maine into 
the position of evaluating the adequacy or appropriateness
of the schools’ religiously inspired curriculum.  Maine does 
not want this role.  As one legislator explained, one of the 
reasons  for  the  nonsectarian  requirement  was  that 
“[g]overnment officials cannot, and should not, review the 
religious teachings of religious schools.”  Ibid.  Another leg-
islator cautioned that the State would be unable to “recon-
cile” the curriculum of “private religious schools who teach
religion in the classroom” with Maine “standards . . . that 
do not include any sort of religion in them.”  Id., at 102. 

Nor do the schools want Maine in this role.  Bangor Chris-
tian  asserted  that  it  would  only  consider  accepting  public 
funds if it “did not have to make any changes in how it op-
erates.”  Id., at 90.  Temple Academy similarly stated that 
it would only accept state money if it had “in writing that
the school would not have to alter its admissions standards, 
hiring standards, or curriculum.”  Id., at 99.  The nonsec-
tarian requirement ensures that Maine is not pitted against 
private religious schools in these battles over curriculum or
operations, thereby avoiding the social strife resulting from
this  state-versus-religion  confrontation.  By  invalidating 
the nonsectarian requirement, the majority today subjects
the State, the schools, and the people of Maine to social con-
flict of a kind that they, and the Religion Clauses, sought to 
prevent.

I  emphasize  the  problems  that  may  arise  out  of  today’s 
decision because they reinforce my belief that the Religion
Clauses do not require Maine to pay for a religious educa-
tion simply because, in some rural areas, the State will help