Document Type
Article
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s trinity of education subsidy cases have created an emergent pattern in education funding cases that extend much further than just emphasizing rules of neutrality and accommodation. These also potentially harm minoritized perspectives and identities by moving far beyond historic doctrinal groundings of separation of church and state. In three key cases all authored by Chief Justice Roberts, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court in this “Holy Trinity” of decisions moved from a theory of benevolent neutrality to policy abdication, relinquishing the Establishment Clause principles in favor of religious freedom guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause. This article dissects these decisions and offers a deep dive into the evolving legal treatment of the Religion Clauses in education. It argues that as religious schools continue to administer policies that exclude minoritized students and condemn the identity of some students, the Supreme Court has done nothing to ensure that public dollars do not go toward sponsoring these discriminatory practices. Instead, this reshaping of law that pushes the limits of free exercise while ripping away the Establishment Clause, champions a conservative agenda in unprecedented ways.
Recommended Citation
Philip T.K. Daniel and Jeffrey C. Sun, The Holy Trinity: Religion Clauses and Education Funding on the Roberts Court, 18 ConLawNOW 11 (2026)