I’ve just returned from the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was a great morning for educational choice! During oral argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, IJ Senior Attorney Dick Komer offered a strong and passionate defense of the principle that the U.S. Constitution demands neutrality with respect to choice programs, and that excluding religious options from generally available student-aid programs is flatly unconstitutional.

While the attorneys were inside making our case to the Court, IJ’s activism team rallied over 200 students benefiting from choice outside on the steps. 

    




As you can see in these photos, it couldn’t have been more clear who educational choice is designed to benefit. And that’s the point that Dick hammered home throughout his argument and in his rousing conclusion—that choice programs are designed to benefit families, not schools, and that parents, not the government, should have the ability to make decisions on where to send their kids to school. A victory in this case will make it possible for states across the country to increase access to options for all families.

The Justices asked tough questions of both sides and it’s always a risky enterprise to make predictions based on the argument, but we are optimistic for a win in this case. If you’d like more details about the argument, the transcript <[link removed]> is already available online. We probably won’t know the outcome of the case until June, but we do know that Dick and the whole IJ team knocked it out of the park today. I look forward to keeping you posted.

Scott

Scott G. Bullock
President and General Counsel
Institute for Justice

Donate Today <[link removed]>

This email was sent to [email protected]. If you no longer wish to receive these emails you may unsubscribe here: [link removed].