Tag Archives: ZZ: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn

ADF Attorney Kevin Theriot at Speak Up Movement Church Blog: The long standing tax provision that permits churches to provide pastors with a non-taxable housing allowance was recently challenged in the case Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Geitner in a California federal court. The radical group that filed the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed it after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in ACSTO v. Winn – an ADF case that severely restricts the ability of anti-religious organizations to challenge government programs that acknowledge the autonomy of religious organizations and the benefits they provide our communities.

But the atheist organization filed another lawsuit challenging the housing allowance in the federal court in Wisconsin on September 17, 2011

The Christian Century (6/29): David Cortman, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for both the National Day of Prayer and for the Arizona tuition credit program, is not surprised about strategies to move to the state courts. “If they can’t challenge them in federal courts, they’ll certainly challenge them in states,” he said, “but we’ll also be there to defend those programs.”

ADF attorney David Cortman appeared on the Jody Hice Show to discuss this the recent victory in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. | MP3 audio 16:38 mins

ADF attorney David Cortman at Townhall Magazine: The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Alliance Defense Fund case Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn is no small victory.

Regent University: David Cortman ’96 (Law) recently served as the lead attorney for the petitioner in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (ACSTO) v. Winn which resulted in a win at the Supreme Court on Monday, April 4. Cortman is the senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) . . .

ADF attorney Kevin Theriot at Townhall: The timing of the National Day of Prayer with the events of this week couldn’t be more appropriate if one would have planned it that way. And recent court decisions rebuffing the ability of anti-religious groups to go to court to strike down the event also couldn’t come at a better time.

Van Baren, Bruce, The Wall Comes Tumbling Down: The Establishment Clause Collides with School Choice (April 27, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1824804

ADF attorney Doug Napier appeared on the Janet Mefferd Show with J.D. Hawyorth to discuss the National Day of Prayer. | MP3 audio 24:48 mins | Decision Points: An Evening with George W. Bush | Thousands of children’s educations saved at U.S. Supreme Court | Victory for academic freedom: 4th Circuit says professor’s speeches, columns protected by First Amendment

ADF attorney Doug Napier on the Hugh Hewitt Show.| MP3 audio 5:39 mins | Decision Points: An Evening with George W. Bush | Thousands of children’s educations saved at U.S. Supreme Court | Victory for academic freedom: 4th Circuit says professor’s speeches, columns protected by First Amendment

Eric Giunta at Renew America: he economy being what it is, I beg (and trust in) my readers’ indulgence as I engage in what follows: a shameless exercise in self-promotion . . . In the Fall of 2010, I interned full-time at the Washington, DC offices of the Alliance Defense Fund . . . I spent the Summer of 2009 studying international and comparative law at the University of Oxford’s St Edmund Hall, and (simultaneous with my externship at ADF) studying executive agency rulemaking and legislative advocacy, in Washington, DC, under the aegis of Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Among my work at ADF, I performed research for the case Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, and drafted a motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of a Young Americans for Freedom chapter, whose free speech rights were being violated by school officials at Palm Beach State College . . .

Jordan Lorence at Human Events: The Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the challenge to Arizona’s tuition tax credit plan gives needed breathing room to that state’s emerging and innovative school-choice system. It also imposes common-sense requirements on opponents of school choice, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which now must come to court with people who have been actually harmed by the tax credit plan, and have more than just generalized complaints against it based on extreme notions of “separation of church and state.”

Bill Frezza at Forbes: Arguing that declining to tax someone is not the same as giving them a government handout, the majority reinforced the idea that not all wealth is owned by the government, which only deigns to let us keep some at its pleasure.

hen President Obama outlines his tax-increase plan on Wednesday, it’ll be based on the liberal assumption that all money belongs to the government, with Americans retaining only what bureaucrats allow. That’s the dangerous argument Supreme CourtJustice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, made last week in a case on education funding.

ADF attorney Dave Cortman appeared on KRLD News Radio 1080 with Mitch Carr to discuss this ruling in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. | MP3 audio 3:10 mins

ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco appeared on the radio to discuss this: ADF attorneys win Arizona parental-choice-in-education case. | Talk from the Heart with Rich Buhler, MP3 audio 9:24 mins | Kresta in the Afternoon, MP3 audio 9:27 mins

Clint Bolick at the Sonoran Alliance: “Monday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the latest challenge to Arizona’s tuition scholarship tax-credit program, which provides dollar-for-dollar tax credits for contributions to private school scholarships . . . Later in the week, the Arizona Legislature increased the amount of the tax credit for the scholarship program from $1,000 to $1,500 per couple. Then on Thursday, the Arizona Legislature became the first in the country to approve education savings accounts, an idea born at the Goldwater Institute . . . ”

ADF attorney David Cortman appeared on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss the victory for parental choice in education at the U.S. Supreme Court. | MP3 audio 11:15 mins

ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco appeared on the Janet Mefferd Show with a guest host to discus the Arizona school choice victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. | MP3 audio 16:04 mins

ADF attorney Greg Baylor appeared on KDCR, Conversations with Carl Zylstra to discuss this: ADF attorneys win Arizona parental-choice-in-education case. | MP3 audio 21:13 mins

Stop the ACLU: The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was thrilled to hear the decision. “Parents should be able to choose what’s best for their own children. This ruling empowers parents to do just that,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “Parents should decide what schools their children attend and where their money goes. The ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

In a bill passed by a 27-1 vote, the state Senate has increased donation limits from $500 to $750. The bill also removes donation limits for corporations and insurance companies.

ADF attorney Erik Stanley writes at the Speak Up Movement Church Blog: My colleague David Cortmanposted a blog about the recent Supreme Court victory in ACSTO v. Winn.  As he points out, there are many great things to celebrate about that case.  I thought I would highlight one other positive development from that case . . .

Mercator.net: The high court agreed 5–4 with the arguments of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against an Arizona program that promotes school choice.

ADF attorney Dave Cortman appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the ruling in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. | MP3 audio 5:55 mins

ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco appeared on KFYI 550 AM with Mike Broomhead to discuss the ruling. | MP3 audio 7:48 mins

Candi Cushman at Citizen Link: As it has done many times before, this week the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit, finding that the ACLU’s clients lacked standing to file the lawsuit. “The decision creates a national precedent that will prevent similar legal attacks in the future,” said the Alliance Defense Fund press release. It affirms a key concept underlying most school choice programs—that private donations and the personal choices of families are voluntary and are not the same thing as government-forced religion.

Michael Foust at Baptist Press: Parents should be able to choose what’s best for their own children. This ruling empowers parents to do just that,” David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a news release. ADF supports the law and represented an STO — the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization — in the case. That particular organization was the main STO party in the case. “Parents should decide what schools their children attend and where their money goes,” Cortman said. “The ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

Huffington Post: The Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, hailed the “national precedent” that will limit similar suits in federal courts. “The court’s reasoning is sound,” said ADF senior counsel David Cortman. “The government does not own 100 percent of every American’s paycheck. The donations are private money, not government money.” Americans United for Separation of Church and State agreed the decision could prevent federal court action on the issue in the future, but vowed to continue the fight in state courts. “This is not a good day for the wall of separation,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “A few more bricks are out of it.”

Sonoran News carries ADF’s Press Release.

Christian Post: The Alliance Defense Fund praised the judges’ decision. “The court’s reasoning is sound,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The donations are private money, not government money.”

Ken Klukowski at the Washington Examiner: The tuition organization was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued that the program doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause because the choice of whether to support a religious school was being made by private citizens, not the government. ADF also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the suit.

NY Sun: [A] huge victory for proponents of parental choice in education” is how today’s news was characterized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a not-for-profit law firm that has played a leading role in the struggle to expand religious liberty. It represented a group called the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, one of more than 50 non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations that ADF said have been set up to distribute private donations in the form of scholarships to more than 27,000 students attending hundreds of private schools at the Grand Canyon State. It’s not just Christians who will benefit from this ruling.

Leader Telegram: The Alliance Defense Fund applauded the ruling and said it sets a “national precedent” that “empowers parents. (They) should be able to choose what’s best for their own children,” said David Cortman, its senior counsel.

Tucson Citizen: “It’s an extremely important decision, not only for all the citizens of Arizona but for the millions of Americans who support school choice,” said David Cortman, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-oriented religious-rights group that represented the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, which intervened as a third party in the case. “But it’s much more broad than simply the issue of school choice. Any type of tax credit or tax deduction that may happen to benefit religious organizations would also have been suspect had the court accepted the ACLU’s arguments,” Cortman added.

Livingston Daily: David Cortman, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who represented a Christian school tuition organization that intervened in support of the Arizona policy, said the ruling “absolutely should embolden legislatures.” He said groups such as his that support “choice” programs would press states to enhance options for parents beyond public schools.

Daily Caller: The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was thrilled to hear the decision. “Parents should be able to choose what’s best for their own children. This ruling empowers parents to do just that,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “Parents should decide what schools their children attend and where their money goes. The ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

CNA: “Parents should decide what schools their children attend and where their money goes,” said Cortman, who serves as Senior Counsel for the defense fund. He said that the American Civil Liberties Union “failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

One News Now: Cortman says the high court’s decision creates a national precedent that will prevent similar legal attacks in the future. “What’s important in this case is that the ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students across the country — and just as importantly, failed to demonstrate that its clients had any constitutional basis to file suit,” says the ADF attorney.

SCOTUS Blog: The Court pares down, to the absolute minimum, the right of taxpayers to challenge government programs that provide financial aid to religion. Arizona’s tax credit system that benefits parochial students survives a challenge.

Adam Liptak at the NY Times: The plaintiffs’ position, Justice Kennedy wrote, “assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands.” But, he added, “private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.”

Wall Street Journal (full text via Google): With one more vote, the current Court’s liberal minority would surely ban school choice involving any religious schools. The Arizona decision shows again that the Court is only a single vote away from many decisions not all that far removed from those of the Ninth Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a huge victory for proponents of parental choice in education Monday. The high court agreed 5–4 with the arguments of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against an Arizona program that promotes school choice.

It held that the challengers to an Arizona tax credit which provides tax credits for contributions to tuition organizations, which then use the contributions to provide scholarships for, among others, religious schools, lack standing under Article III because they are challenging a tax credit, rather than government spending.

But the Supreme Court saw through all of that rhetoric and held that the ACLU’s clients have no right to come to court in the first place because they have no legal standing. In simple terms, they have no injury to complain of. The Court agreed with ADF’s argument that the money donated is private money—not the government’s—and that someone else’s donation creates no legal injury to ACLU’s clients.

Liberty Counsel: Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Parents deserve the right to choose how to educate their children. This program gives parents the rights that everyone should enjoy. It is contrary to our history of liberty that parents should be forced to educate their children in government schools, particularly when some schools doom their children to failure. Parents know best about their children’s well-being and should be given every opportunity to provide a quality education of their choice.”

Center for Arizona Policy: Center for Arizona Policy filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the program, along with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Christian Legal Society, and several religious liberty organization and scholars

FRC applauds the work of its allies the Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel and the American Association of Christian Schools. We also thank U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), whose 1995 authorship of the Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit legislation while serving in the Arizona legislature set the groundwork for today’s historic ruling.”

AFC: The effort to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision was led by the Institute for Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund

Fox News: “Parents should be able to choose what’s best for their own children. This ruling empowers parents to do just that,” Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel David Cortman said in a statement. “The ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

ADF attorney Heather Gebelin Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “At the beginning of a new year, there is a valuable opportunity for reflection on the past year and what it means for the future. While 2010 was certainly not without its major victories for free speech, it also suffered some challenges. Here’s a quick look back at developments in ADF’s academic freedom cases in 2010 and what they mean for 2011.”

ADF Attorney David Cortman writing at Inside the Issues: “To the attorneys defending the program, Justice Kennedy asked whether an STO would be permitted to discriminate based on race. His hypothetical assumed that no federal or state laws forbid such actions (which they do). He was asking whether STOs are government entities because there are “rules” with which they must comply. Short answer, no. Longer answer, no.”

Ken Klukowski writing at Townhall: “The second issue was argued by a lawyer from the office of Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard (an outgoing Democrat). That was a shame, in that this case was defended by, and the briefs written throughout the case—including at the Supreme Court level—were written by, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Arizona’s lawyer was hesitant in many of her answers . . . while ADF’s lead attorney in this case, [David Cortman], is a well-spoken appellate lawyer who was better equipped to argue the case, and wrote the brief for the STO. (I can’t remember the last time the lawyer who wrote the brief for the Supreme Court was not allowed to argue the case.)”

ADF Weekly Update: School choice: a parent’s right under attack

Lisa McElroy writing at SCOTUSblog: “In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a group of taxpayers brought suit challenging an Arizona policy that allows those who donate money to school tuition organizations – which, according to the taxpayers, mostly sponsor scholarships to religious schools – to receive tax credits for their donations . . . The Court considered religion in another case this week: Sossamon v. Texas, in which an inmate in a Texas state prison alleged that various prison policies violated his right to freely exercise his religion.”

At Bench Memos, ADF Attorney David French responds to Robert VerBruggen on tax-credit voucher programs: “Taxpayers give money to nonprofit organizations based upon shared beliefs and shared goals. Arizona has chosen to further incentivize one segment of charitable giving (in the arena of education, which is a public and private function) by giving a relatively modest tax credit.”

ADF attorney David Cortman appeared on NPR’s “All Things Considered”. The report by Nina Totenberg summarizes oral arguments in the Arizona school choice litigation.  | MP3 audio 4:33 mins

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “The Washington Post editorial board agrees with ADF that Arizona’s school choice tax credit is constitutionally permissible . . . The key line in the Post editorial: ‘The program is driven by a series of private choices that do not involve the government.’”

OneNewsNow: “‘They had tried to argue that this was somehow government money,’ [ADF Attorney David Cortman] explains. ‘But, of course, the argument we made [was that] it was private people making private donations to private organizations — and simply because religious schools participate [in the program], it doesn’t violate the Constitution.’”

Christian Post: “‘Parents should be able to choose what school their children attend and where their money goes. Just because religious schools can join the program on the same basis as non-religious ones doesn’t make it unconstitutional,’ said [ADF Attorney David Cortman].”

NPR reports High court weighs tax credit for religious schools: “Mr. PAUL BENDER: ‘Sixty-five percent of the whole program went out on the basis of religion. You get this scholarship only if you send your kid to the religious school that I designate.’ TOTENBERG: ‘But [David Cortman] of the Arizona Christian Schools Tuition Association disagreed.’ Mr. DAVID CORTMAN (Arizona Christian Schools Tuition Association): ‘Not a dime goes to any school, religious or secular, unless the parent decides, number one, that their child will attend that school; and number two, that they apply for a scholarship.’”

Marcia Coyle writing at The National Law Journal: “The Supreme Court, in separate arguments on Wednesday, waded into two difficult parts of the Constitution that traditionally have divided the justices: religion and preemption.”

SCOTUSblog: “The transcript of today’s oral argument in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn is now available here . . . ”

Arizona Republic: “‘There is a very important philosophical point here,’ [Justice Alito] said sternly. ‘You think that all the money belongs to the government except to the extent that it deigns to allow private people to keep some of it’ . . . Outside the court, [David Cortman], a Georgia lawyer for the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, told reporters that the private-school tax credit is only one of many options Arizona offers to trim taxpayer debt. ‘It’s simply not the government’s money until you reach the bottom line of the tax form, and no sooner,’ he said.”

The Christian Century (RNS): “Is a state law that allows tax credits for donations to scholarship programs unconstitutional if most of the recipients attend religious schools? . . . The Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization in the case, said in a court filing that the percentage of religiously affiliated STOs in the program has dropped from 94 percent in 1998 to 67 percent in 2009.”

Los Angeles Times: “The Obama administration upset liberals as well as the president’s two Supreme Court appointees Wednesday by arguing that ordinary citizens have no legal right to go to court to challenge the government if it uses tax money to fund religious schools.”

Update: Religion Clause has the relevant excerpts from the transcript.

ADF attorney David Cortman is featured in one of the podcasts. He provides an excellent overview of the litigation and its stakes.

CBN News: “‘This program is important to the millions of Americans who support school choice across the country,’ [ADF Attorney David Cortman] said. ‘And Arizona is trying to increase their scores by giving parents a choice whether they want to go to public schools, charter schools or private schools, and this is just another prong in that.’” | Post includes video:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “Remarkably, Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal appeared before the justices to argue on behalf of the program. For some reason, the Obama administration thought it would be a good idea to join groups like TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society, the Alliance Defense Fund and others supporting this ill-conceived plan.”

Liberty Counsel: “Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Kathleen M. Winn. This case involves a challenge to an Arizona school choice law that provides dollar-for-dollar tax credits to taxpayers who make contributions to independent organizations, which in turn grant scholarships to students attending private schools. Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Brief in this case. Mandi Campbell, Esq., Legal Director of the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, will be present at the hearing and also available immediately afterward.”

The Heritage Foundation: “Amidst the flurry of political activity taking place this week, outside the voting booth another important policy issue is up for consideration. This Wednesday, November 3, school choice will be on trial at the United States Supreme Court, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union.”

Arizona Republic: “A case to be argued Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court could settle once and for all the legal bounds of Arizona’s private-school tuition tax-credit program . . . The right-to-sue issue is more likely to be the main focus of attention for the justices because the Supreme Court already has endorsed a private-school voucher program, in Cleveland, that allows parents to spend state money on private religious or secular schools.”

ADF News Release: “Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel David Cortman will be available for media interviews following oral argument Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. ADF contends that the suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, should be dismissed because the ACLU hasn’t proven that its clients have any legal standing to sue over someone else’s private donations.”

ADF Attorney David Cortman writing at Inside the Issues: “Since the program operates no differently than a typical tax deduction for a donation to either a religious or secular charity, where’s the beef? As the Supreme Court said in a similar case, it is merely a religious difference.”

David Masci, Senior Researcher, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: “On Nov. 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of related cases involving a constitutional challenge to an Arizona tax policy aimed at providing scholarships for children to attend private — often religious — schools. The cases, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn and Arizona Department of Revenue v. Winn, involve a state tax credit for Arizona residents who contribute money to what are called scholarship tuition organizations (STOs), nonprofit groups that use taxpayer contributions to provide scholarships for children to attend private schools. Opponents of the tax credit contend that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because, in their view, it allows the state to channel public money to religious schools. Those defending the tax credit maintain that it meets the constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the 2002 ruling which upheld a school voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio. Before deciding the Establishment Clause issue, however, the court will consider whether those challenging the tax credit have legal standing, which is the right to bring such a lawsuit.”

ADF President Alan Sears writes at TellADF.org: “It’s one pretty dependable sign that you’re doing the right thing when you find the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Atheist Alliance International, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation lined up against you in a single case. That’s just a sampling of the extraordinary opposition aggravated by and aggregated against the notion that parents should have the freedom to choose where their children go to school. And right now, that collective legal hostility is directed specifically toward destroying the choice permitted by the tuition tax credit in Arizona . . . ”