Justices Again Asked to Draw Church-State Line

That question is before the Supreme Court in the latest twist in the long debate over religion and its relationship with the government.

Last year, the high court said states may use taxpayers' money to pay for children to go to church-related schools. The 5-4 ruling upheld a voucher program in Ohio that gives low-income parents a stipend that they can use to send their child to a church-related school. The flow of public money to a parochial school did not violate the 1st Amendment's ban on an "establishment of religion," the court ruled.

Now, religious-rights advocates and voucher proponents are urging the justices to go a step further and rule that if states are supporting nonreligious private schools through scholarships, tuition aid or other means, they must also cover costs for those at religious schools.

The justices met last week to consider raising the issue and are likely to announce today whether they will hear the appeal.

To single out religious schools for exclusion violates the 1st Amendment's ban on the "free exercise of religion," religious rights lawyers say.

This claim runs squarely into the constitutions in 36 states, including California, that specifically forbid the use of public money for "sectarian" schools.

In the past, the California courts have struck down state programs that gave textbooks to students attending parochial schools on the grounds that the aid for religious instruction violated the state constitution.

But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, suggested that these state restrictions on public aid for religious schools violate the 1st Amendment's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion.

Voucher advocates say striking down these bans will remove a legal barrier to statewide "school choice" programs that support students who go to religious schools.

UC Berkeley law professor Jesse H. Choper, an expert on the religious clauses of the Constitution, said the justices have not interpreted the guarantee of "free exercise" of religion as a guarantee of public support for religion. "It would be a big step" if they did, he said.