{"id":270937,"date":"2022-08-01T09:00:44","date_gmt":"2022-08-01T03:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=270937"},"modified":"2022-07-31T18:02:27","modified_gmt":"2022-07-31T12:32:27","slug":"scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): <\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">While deciding the instant petition wherein the Maine Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) was sued for instituting a requisite for schools to be \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">nonsectarian<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d in order to be eligible for tuition assistance; the SCOTUS, with a ratio of 6: 3 held that the \u2018<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">non-sectarian requirement<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u2019 for tuition assistance payments is violative of the First Amendment\u2019s Free Exercise Clause.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><span data-contrast=\"none\">Facts of the Case:<\/span><\/b> <span data-contrast=\"auto\">The State of Maine had enacted a <\/span><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">program of tuition assistance<\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> for parents who live in school districts which &#8211; <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">neither operate a secondary school of their own<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> nor <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">contract with a particular school in another district<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">. Under this program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their children to attend, and the school district transmits payments to that school to help meet the cost of tuition.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The private schools under the program should meet certain criteria to be eligible to receive tuition payments. The requirement includes either accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (hereinafter NEASC) or approval from the Maine Department of Education. However, since 1981, Maine has limited the tuition assistance payments to <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201cnonsectarian\u201d <\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">(secular) schools.<\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The petitioners sought tuition assistance to send their children to Bangor Christian Schools (BCS) and Temple Academy. Although <\/span><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">both schools are accredited by NEASC, they however, do not qualify as <\/span><\/b><b><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201cnonsectarian\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/b><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> and are thus ineligible to receive tuition payments<\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> under Maine\u2019s tuition assistance program.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><span data-contrast=\"none\">Observations by the Majority:<\/span><\/b> <span data-contrast=\"auto\">The majority opinion was delivered by<\/span><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> John Roberts, CJ.<\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">, in which Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, JJ., joined.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Agreeing with the petitioners that their rights under US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment have been violated the Department\u2019s \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">nonsectarian requirement<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d, the majority observed that the SCOTUS in several precedents, had already decided that discrimination\/ prohibition\/ restriction based on religion is a contravention of the First Amendment\u2019s Free Exercise Clause.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"2\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Referring to the decisions in <\/span><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources<\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">, <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/vD5T0W85\"><span data-contrast=\"none\">2017 SCC OnLine US SC 86,<\/span><\/a><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> and <\/span><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, <\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">591 U. S., the Court observed that Maine offers its citizens a benefit in the form of tuition assistance payments for any family whose school district does not provide a public secondary school. However, any eligibility criteria which disqualify any private school solely because they are religious, must be subjected to \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">strictest scrutiny<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"3\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The majority observed that if Maine\u2019s \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">nonsectarian requirement<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d is scrutinized, then it won\u2019t survive because a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause. \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Maine\u2019s decision to continue excluding religious schools from its tuition assistance program thus promotes stricter separation of church and state than the Federal Constitution requires. But a State\u2019s anti-establishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"4\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">It was further observed that Maine\u2019s administration of this benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any public benefit program, including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient\u2019s religious exercise.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><span data-contrast=\"none\">The Dissent: <\/span><\/b><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Stephen Breyer, J.<\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">, delivered his dissenting opinion in which Elena Kagan, J., joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also filed her dissenting opinion.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"2\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The dissenting Judges observed that the majority Judges ignored the \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">play in the joints<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d between the Clauses of the First Amendment, which gives States some degree of legislative leeway and sometimes allows a State to further anti-establishment interests by withholding aid from religious institutions without violating the Constitution\u2019s protections for the free exercise of religion.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"2\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"2\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Judges pointed out the increased risk of religiously based social conflict when government promotes religion in its public school system. \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">People in our country adhere to a vast array of beliefs, ideals, and philosophies. And with greater religious diversity comes greater risk of religiously based strife, conflict, and social division. The Religion Clauses were written in part to help avoid that disunion\u201d. <\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">It was also observed that a \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">rigid, bright-line<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d approach to the Religion Clauses is an approach without any leeway or \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">play in the joints<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d and this will too often work against the Clauses\u2019 underlying purposes.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"2\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"3\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">It was observed that Maine chooses not to fund only those schools that \u201c\u2018<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">promote the faith or belief system with which the schools are associated and\/or present the academic material taught through the lens of this faith<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d i.e., schools that will use public money for religious purposes. Maine thus excludes schools from its tuition program not because of the schools\u2019 religious character but because the schools will use the funds to teach and promote religious ideals.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"2\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"4\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The dissenting Judges stated that in order to decide the instant issue, it is important to observe the differences between religious education and a purely civic, public education- the connection that religious institutions draw between their central purpose and educating the young in the faith is so close that teachers employed at such schools, often act as ministers. Whereas, public schools first and foremost, seek to provide a primarily civic education. \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Maine legislators who endorsed the State\u2019s nonsectarian requirement recognized these differences between public and religious education. They did not want Maine taxpayers to finance, through a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free public education, schools that would use state money for teaching religious practices\u201d<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">.\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"2\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0b7&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" aria-setsize=\"-1\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Maine\u2019s nonsectarian requirement is constitutional because it supports the Religion Clauses\u2019 goal of avoiding religious strife. Forcing Maine to fund schools that provide religiously integrated education creates a similar potential for religious strife as that raised by promoting religion in public schools. \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Religion Clauses give Maine the right to honor that neutrality by choosing not to fund religious schools as part of its public-school tuition program. I believe the majority is wrong to hold the contrary\u201d.<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Sonia Sotomayor, J., <\/span><\/b><span data-contrast=\"auto\">in her dissenting opinion, observed that the majority\u2019s decision will dismantle the wall separating church and state that the Framers fought to build. She also noted that the majority decision leads America to a place where separation of church and state becomes a <span style=\"color: #000080;\">constitutional<\/span> violation. \u201c<\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic anti-establishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><b>[Carson v. Makin, No. 20\u20131088, decided on 21-06-2022]<\/b>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has prepared this brief.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b><\/b><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): While deciding the instant petition wherein the Maine Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) was <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[30014,50602,40666],"class_list":["post-270937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-scotus","tag-separation-of-church-and-state","tag-tuition-fees"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): While deciding the instant petition wherein the Maine Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) was\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-08-01T03:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-01T03:30:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment","og_description":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): While deciding the instant petition wherein the Maine Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) was","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-08-01T03:30:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","name":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-01T03:30:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":231905,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/08\/scotus-bar-imposed-on-families-from-using-state-scholarships-for-religious-schools-is-violative-of-free-exercise-clause-of-federal-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS | Bar imposed on families from using State Scholarships for religious schools is violative of Free Exercise Clause of Federal Constitution\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States: While determining that whether Rule 1 promulgated by the Montana Revenue Department barring the families from using State scholarships, for religious schools is violative of the Federal Constitution; the 9 Judge Bench of the Court, with a ratio of 5:4 held that, the application\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236832,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/06\/scotus-south-carolinas-witness-signature-rule-for-absentee-ballots-temporarily-reinstated\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS | South Carolina\u2019s witness signature rule for absentee ballots temporarily reinstated","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a crucial decision before the upcoming Presidential Elections in the USA, the SCOTUS temporarily reinstated South Carolina's (SC) requirement that absentee ballots include witness signatures. The Court however stated that any ballots cast or received within two days of this order may\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208299,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/17\/scotus-burglary-in-mobile-structures-for-overnight-accommodation-included-in-burglary-under-armed-career-criminal-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS | Burglary in mobile structures for overnight accommodation included in \u2018burglary\u2019 under Armed Career Criminal Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 17, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States: \u00a0This appeal was filed before the Bench of Breyer, J. The case involved two defendants who were convicted in the Federal Court for unlawful possession of firearms which was violative of \u00a7 922(g)(1) of The Armed Career Criminal Act. Each offender had State burglary\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232883,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/27\/scotus-allows-federal-executions-first-federal-executions-in-17-years-full-story\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS allows Federal Executions; first federal executions in 17 years [Full Story]","author":"Editor","date":"July 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267930,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/03\/courts-should-not-make-procedural-rules-favoring-arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":4},"title":"SCOTUS |\u00a0Courts should not make procedural rules favoring arbitration; FAA Policy not to foster arbitration","author":"Editor","date":"June 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): Elena Kagan, J. has clarified that a party challenging arbitration does not need to prove that it experienced any prejudice in order to establish the other party has waived its right to arbitration by pursuing litigation. The genesis of this deliberation is in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232170,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/14\/breaking-scotus-allows-federal-executions-1st-federal-execution-in-17-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":270937,"position":5},"title":"BREAKING | SCOTUS allows Federal Executions; 1st federal executions in 17 years","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"United States Supreme Court with a ratio of 5:4 has cleared the way for the resumption of execution of federal prisoners. The Judges voted to allow the first executions on the federal level since 2003 (17 years) to proceed at the Federal Prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. The majority in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270937\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}