Opinion ID: 2058058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Free Exercise and Limitation of Choice

Text: [¶ 48] The parents assert that the government, when making a range of choices available to a group, may not limit those choices on the basis of religion without violating the Free Exercise Clause. The failure to consider the neutrality problem, they argue, undermines the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause holdings in Bagley. [¶ 49] A statute that is not neutral but either disfavors religion on its face or has been motivated by animosity against religion is subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny and can be justified only upon a demonstration of a compelling governmental interest in the statute. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-32, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993). A statute that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest, even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice. Smith, 494 U.S. at 879-80, 110 S.Ct. 1595; Goodall, 60 F.3d at 171, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1046, 116 S.Ct. 706, 133 L.Ed.2d 661. [¶ 50] In Locke, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the scholarship restriction was presumptively unconstitutional because it was not neutral with respect to religion, citing City of Hialeah. Locke, 540 U.S. at 720, 124 S.Ct. 1307. In Hialeah, the City had adopted ordinances that made it a crime to slaughter animals for reasons other than food consumption. The Supreme Court determined that, although neutral on their face, the ordinances were unconstitutional because they were aimed at suppressing the practice of ritualistic animal sacrifice among members of the Santeria religion. The Court found overwhelming evidence in the record that animosity against the Santeria religion had motivated the ordinances' passage, and struck them down. Id. at 535, 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. [¶ 51] The Court in Locke distinguished the scholarship restriction from the ordinances in Hialeah, finding that although not neutral on its face, the scholarship restriction nevertheless withstood constitutional challenge because [Washington's program] imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction. 540 U.S. at 720-21, 124 S.Ct. 1307 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). [¶ 52] The Eulitt court assessed whether, after Locke, section 2951(2) was unconstitutional on the ground of non-neutrality. The court held that the mere exclusion of sectarian schools as recipients of public funds does not create a presumption of animosity against religion, and found that the record contained no evidence that the statute had been motivated by such animosity. 386 F.3d at 355. Analyzing the factors set forth in Locke and Hialeah, the Eulitt court stated: Maine's decision not to extend tuition funding to religious schools does not threaten any civil or criminal penalty. By the same token, it does not in any way inhibit political participation. Finally, it does not require residents to forgo religious convictions in order to receive the benefit offered by the statea secular education. Id. [¶ 53] In Bagley we suggested that section 2591(2) was not neutral on its face, and we subjected the statute to strict scrutiny. 1999 ME 60, ¶ 16 n. 10, 728 A.2d at 133-34. Because we determined that the statute did not substantially burden a religious practice, however, our analysis ended there. Id. ¶ 20, 728 A.2d at 135. The statements in Bagley regarding strict scrutiny did not have the benefit of the analysis in Locke and Eulitt, which clarified that a statute does not lose its neutrality and become subject to strict scrutiny simply because it precludes state funding of a religious educational choice. Locke, 540 U.S. at 720, 124 S.Ct. 1307; Eulitt, 386 F.3d at 356. Although, with the benefit of the analysis in Locke, it is unnecessary to apply a strict scrutiny analysis, we continue to adhere to the view expressed in Bagley that section 2591(2) does not substantially burden a religious practice. [¶ 54] A burden upon religion exists when the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs. Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981). None of the parties in this case has asserted that attendance at public or secular private schools is proscribed by their faith, or that they are being punished for engaging in conduct mandated by their faith, or that the statute places any pressure on them to modify their beliefs. The statute merely prohibits the State from funding their school choice, and as such, it does not burden or inhibit religion in a constitutionally significant manner. [¶ 55] The fact that after Zelman the Legislature could hypothetically extend tuition funding to sectarian schools without violating the Establishment Clause does not support a presumption that religious hostility motivates the decision to continue the religious school exclusion. Locke recognizes that states have some leeway to choose not to fund religious education even if a choice to fund religious education indirectly might not violate the Establishment Clause.