School Choice and Separation of Church and State

We the People

National Constitution Center

News, News Commentary, History

4.6 • 1.1K Ratings

🗓️ 23 January 2020

⏱️ 57 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – a case that may have major implications for the free exercise of religion and the future of school choice and public education. The lawsuit asks whether Montana violated the federal constitution when it terminated a program that gave tax breaks to people who donated to a scholarship fund, which was used by students attending both religious and secular private schools. Our guests explain the technicalities of the case, and how it squares with some of the Court’s key decisions on the separation of church and state. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Michael Bindas – a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), the group representing the parents who filed suit after the program was terminated – and Alice O’Brien – General Counsel at the National Education Association (NEA), who’s written about the case for SCOTUSblog. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome to We
0:08.6	the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.
0:12.0	The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress
0:17.0	to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people. Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue,
0:27.0	a case that may have important implications for the future of religious freedom and the First Amendment.
0:35.0	Joining us to discuss it are two advocates who have written about and worked on the case
0:40.3	and two of America's leading experts on religious freedom.
0:45.0	Michael Bindus is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, the group representing
0:49.6	the petitioners in this case who originally brought the lawsuit. He litigates in courts
0:54.2	nationwide to protect freedom of speech economic liberty, educational choice, and
0:58.8	other individual liberties. Michael it is wonderful to have you with us.
1:02.0	Thanks for having me, Jeff. I appreciate it.
1:04.0	And Alice O'Brien is general counsel at the National Education Association,
1:08.0	the nation's largest professional employee organization
1:11.0	committed to advancing the cause of public education across the country. employee organization
1:14.1	committed to advancing the cause of public education across the country.
1:15.2	She is the author of a scotis blog piece on this case
1:18.4	arguing for deference for state constitutional protections
1:21.9	for public education.
1:23.0	Alice, it's wonderful to have you with us as well.
1:26.0	Thanks so much. I'm delighted to be part of this.
1:29.0	Great.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.