Author
Abstract
This comment examines the constitutional future of state Blaine-style Amendments following the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin. While recent Free Exercise Clause decisions have largely invalidated state provisions that deny public benefits to institutions based on their religious status, the comment argues that a distinct category of amendment remains constitutionally viable: provisions that prohibit public funding of all private schools, regardless of religious affiliation. Through a historical and doctrinal analysis of Blaine-style Amendments, the development of the Supreme Court’s “play in the joints” jurisprudence, and the Court’s decisions in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson, the author contends that modern Free Exercise doctrine permits states to decline funding private education altogether, provided they do not discriminate on the basis of religion. The comment focuses on Michigan’s constitutional amendment, which bars public aid to all private elementary and secondary schools rather than targeting religious institutions specifically. Comparing Michigan’s approach with similar provisions in Alaska and Massachusetts, the author argues that Michigan’s amendment best withstands contemporary constitutional scrutiny because it rests on a public-private distinction rather than a sectarian-nonsectarian distinction. The comment further maintains that Michigan’s amendment survives claims of unconstitutional religious animus because it was adopted and later reaffirmed long after the anti-Catholic sentiment associated with the original federal Blaine Amendment. The author concludes that Michigan’s model provides a constitutional blueprint for states seeking to limit public funding of religious education while remaining consistent with modern Free Exercise jurisprudence and maintaining a strong separation between church and state. [This abstract was written by Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence.]
Suggested Citation
Stratton, Ry, 2026.
"Can’t Blaine a State for Trying: Writing a Constitutional Blaine Amendment After Carson v. Makin,"
LawArchive
wpf4c_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:lawarc:wpf4c_v1
DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/wpf4c_v1
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:wpf4c_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.