Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Litigation: The Ohio Supreme Court had previously struck down the Cleveland voucher program, Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 711 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1999), ruling it was unconstitutional because the legislation adopting the voucher program violated the single subject rule. However, the court also held that the voucher program did not violate the state constitution’s compelled support or education clauses and did not violate the Federal constitution’s Establishment Clause. Opposed to educational choice program:  ACLU of Ohio Foundation; American Jewish Committee; Anti-Defamation League; California Alliance for Public Schools; Council on Religious Freedom; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty; National School Boards Association; Ohio Association for Public Education and Religious Liberty; Ohio Education Association; Ohio School Boards Association; People for the American Way In support:  American Center for Law and Justice; American Civil Rights Union; American  Education Reform Council; Arizona Institute for Justice; Association of Christian Schools International; Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Black Alliance for Educational Options; Catholic League for Religious and Civil rights; CATO Institute; Center for Individual Freedom; Christian Legal Society; Center for Education Reform; Center for Individual Freedom; Children First America; Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; Cleveland City Councilwoman Fannie Lewis; Coalition for Local Sovereignty; Gary E. Johnson, Gov. of New Mexico; Goldwater Institute; Hugh Calkins;  Ira J. Paul; Jesse H. Choper, et al.; John Coons and Stephen Sugarman; Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation; National Association of Independent Schools; National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs; Pacific Legal Foundation; REACH Alliance; Mayors Rudolph Giuliani and John Norquist; Rutherford Institute; Solidarity Center for Law and Justice; State of Florida, and Alabama, Delaware, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia; State of Wisconsin; United States; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Vermonters for Better Education;

Outcomes: On June 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland school voucher program does not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that vouchers are constitutional when parents have independent, private choice of schools without favoring or disfavoring religion. By design, the voucher program is “school neutral.”

Why it Matters: This case firmly established the constitutionality of the foundation of voucher programs – that funding flows from the state to a parent on behalf of the student. At that point when the parent controls the expenditure of that funding, the state has no role in determining whether the parent will choose to use funding at a religious or secular school. The funding then belongs to the parent and therefore choice of school rests squarely in the hands of parents. The state’s “role ends with the disbursement of benefits.” Zelman, at p 640.

Effects: The Zelman case has been good law since 2002. The case has been upheld and numerous state courts have relied on this case as they found vouchers to be constitutional. At the time this case was decided, 4,253 Cleveland students received vouchers; today, over 7800 students are using vouchers to attend the school of their choice.

Amicus Brief