Mediaboss Marketing

The court has backed away from that idea since 1985 first holding that states may extend aid on a neutral basis to religious schools, and now holding that neutrality is not merely permitted but required. School choice is actually the opposite of the establishment of religion by the government; it allows pluralism and diversity in education, as an alternative to the homogeneity of public schools.

The importance goes beyond freedom of religion. The inferior quality of many American public schools, especially those serving inner-city minority populations, is a primary reason for this countrys outrageous economic and social inequality. Private schools, including religious schools, bring needed competition and offer poorly served families an alternative.

Espinoza is particularly significant because increasing numbers of state legislatures wish to experiment with various kinds of school choice, but state courts often stand in the way, invoking 19th-century state constitutional provisions passed in the days of anti-Catholic, anti-ethnic prejudice. The courts decision does not require state legislatures to enact school choice programs, but it enables them to do so without the impediment of hostile state court decisions.

Wednesdays decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru likewise protects pluralism in education. Building on a unanimous decision eight years ago, a 7-2 majority held that religious schools may choose those who teach religion classes without governmental interference, even in the face of discrimination claims. This helps guarantee the autonomy of religious teaching from government control, and from intrusive inquiries into whether a schools judgment about religious considerations is not the real reason for the termination of a teacher.

The Little Sisters of the Poor decision, also handed down Wednesday in a 7-2 vote, ensures that religious orders will not be required to provide health insurance for contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs. For now. As a legal matter, the decision merely holds that the executive branch has discretion to determine the contours of any obligations to provide contraceptive coverage discretion that could be exercised the opposite way by the next administration.

Taking the long view, this Supreme Court has been consistently supportive of religious liberty. In 13 cases involving religion since 2012, the religious side prevailed in 12 of them, sometimes by lopsided majorities. Out in the culture wars, religious freedom may be a contested proposition, but in the Supreme Court it is the most consistent part of a jurisprudence of pluralism.

Michael W. McConnell is a professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. From 2002 to 2009, he served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See original here:
On Religion, the Supreme Court Protects the Right to Be Different - The New York Times