Law & Courts

Legal Battle Over School Vouchers Returns to Maine

By John Gehring — September 25, 2002 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

School choice activists have launched a fresh legal challenge to a Maine program that provides public funding for students to attend secular but not religious private schools. The case is the first of what observers say could become a string of state-level lawsuits spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Cleveland voucher program.

The Institute for Justice, the Washington-based legal-advocacy group that helped defend the Cleveland program, filed suit Sept. 18 in the Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland, Maine, on behalf of six families from three towns in the state. In Maine, school districts provide tuition for students to attend private or out-of-district public schools if their home districts do not have enough schools to serve them. Some 18,000 Maine students, the vast majority of them in high school, take part in the program, referred to as “tuitioning.”

In 1981, the legislature enacted a law that barred Maine districts from paying for students to attend religious schools. Lawmakers acted after an opinion from the state attorney general, who said including religious schools in the program would violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion.

The Institute for Justice argues that denying Maine parents the right to select religious schools for their children under the tuitioning policy amounts to religious discrimination. The organization brought a similar suit in 1997, but the Maine Supreme Court upheld the law. The institute asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. The request was denied in 1999.

“For us, this is basically unfinished business,” said Richard Komer, a senior lawyer for the institute and the lead counsel in both the 1997 case and the current suit. “They have drawn a line on the basis of religion, and they did it for one reason and one reason only: They thought they had to. The Cleveland case proves they were wrong about that.”

Not Unexpected

In a June 27 ruling that has buoyed school choice proponents nationwide, the Supreme Court upheld a state-run choice program that provides vouchers worth up to $2,250 each to Cleveland students to attend religious or secular private schools. Ohio officials expect more than 5,500 students, most from low-income families, to participate in the program this school year.

Since that 5-4 ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, legal experts have predicted new state-level court battles over school choice. (“Supreme Court Upholds Cleveland Voucher Program,” June 27, 2002.)

Thirty-eight states, including Maine, have constitutions that are seen as prohibiting public funds from going to religious schools, and school choice activists are hoping to overturn those bans in court.

In Florida, the Institute for Justice is helping the state defend a school choice program that allows students from low- performing schools to use vouchers to attend religious as well as secular private schools. On Aug. 5, a state circuit court judge ruled that the program violates a clause in the state constitution that bars religious institutions, including schools, from receiving public money. The state has appealed that ruling, and the judge has allowed the voucher program to continue until the case is resolved. (“Florida Sees Surge in Use of Vouchers,” Sept. 4, 2002.)

Meanwhile, Mr. Komer of the institute said his organization would take legal action in Vermont, which has a tuitioning program similar to Maine’s, within the next two months.

J. Duke Albanese, Maine’s commissioner of education, said last week that he had consulted with state Attorney General G. Steven Rowe after the decision in the Cleveland case and was told Maine’s choice program would withstand legal scrutiny.

Mr. Albanese said the issue in the Zelman case was whether a state may allow vouchers to be used at religious schools in some situations, and not whether a state would be required to pay for education in religious schools.

“The questions in the cases are very different,” Mr. Albanese said. “There is significant choice in Maine already.”

Related Tags:

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Managing AI in Schools: Practical Strategies for Districts
How should districts govern AI in schools? Learn practical strategies for policies, safety, transparency, as well as responsible adoption.
Content provided by Lightspeed Systems
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Unlocking Success for Struggling Adolescent Readers
The Science of Reading transformed K-3 literacy. Now it's time to extend that focus to students in grades 6 through 12.
Content provided by STARI
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court’s Gender Identity Ruling Leaves Schools Seeking Clarity
Advocates say they would welcome more from the Supreme Court on gender-notification policies.
7 min read
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington.
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington. The high court recently ruled that California policies that sometimes limit or discourage schools from disclosing information to parents about children’s gender transitions and expressions at school likely violate parents’ constitutional rights
Rahmat Gul/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Backs Parents in School Gender Disclosure Fight
The Supreme Court restored an injunction blocking California policies on student gender transitions
8 min read
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender in November 2025. A policy on the issue in the city’s elementary school district is the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit in which a judge just sided against the district.
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender at a meeting in November 2025. Two parents and two teachers from the district sued in 2023, challenging California state guidance concerning student gender transitions and parental notification. The U.S. Supreme Court has now reinstated a lower-court decision overturning those state policies.
Charlie Neuman for The San Diego Union-Tribune/TNS
Law & Courts Appeals Court Allows Louisiana Ten Commandments Displays to Proceed
The court said it was premature to rule on the constitutionality of La. Ten Commandments displays.
3 min read
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025.
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Oct. 16, 2025. A federal appeals court has lifted a lower-court injunction blocking a Louisiana law that requires Ten Commandments displays, clearing the way for the law to take effect.
Eric Gay/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Strikes Trump Tariffs in Case Brought by Educational Toy Companies
Two educational toy companies were among the leading challengers to the president's tariff policies
3 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. On Feb. 20, 2026, the court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Donald Trump's broad tariff policies, ruling that they were not authorized by the federal statute that he cited for them.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP