Court Opinion

ID: 9467096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:38:22.322252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:09.514823
License: Public Domain

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting).
I agree with the court that the tuition and textbook deductions are foreclosed by decisions of the Supreme Court. The tuition deduction seems to me to be utterly foreclosed by Committee for Public Edúcation v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973). The textbook deduction seems more acceptable at first blush, but because it encompasses materials other than strictly textbooks, and because of the other factors stated in the court’s opinion, it is deficient under the reasoning in Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974), and, more recently, Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1976).
At this time when many Americans feel oppressed by the bigness and drab uniformity of many public institutions, judicial decisions of this nature, which seemingly detract from efforts to maintain a diverse educational system and a pluralistic community, may seem perplexing. Many people might prefer the path urged by Justice White in his dissenting opinion in Nyquist which, had it been followed, would have allowed room for legislation of the type presently before us. It is clear, however, that a majority of the Court favors a stricter degree of separation of church and state to avoid the evils of which history and experience inform us when the two become too closely intermingled. The lower federal courts are obligated to construe the law as the high Court provides, and thus I can see no basis for upholding the tuition and textbook deductions.
The transportation deduction presents a different situation. By itself it is constitutional. I see no reason to strike it down. I am not persuaded that those who supported this legislation would want it to disappear just because the other items cannot survive. Thus I dissent as to this relatively minor aspect of the court’s opinion.