1
Religion and Public Schools: The meaning of the Johnson and Blaine Amendments in the future
of religious practices in public schools.
Dustin Robinson, Jacob Durance, Adam Rea,
Eric Turner and Dr. Steve Permuth
2
But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified,
solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.
-Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion,
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012 (2017)
This Court has repeatedly warned that funding of exactly this kind — payments from the
government to a house of worship — would cross the line drawn by the Establishment Clause.
-Justice Sotomayor, dissenting opinion,
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012 (2017)
Overview
In recent years, politicians and education reform proponents have placed significant
emphasis on issues in education funding. Many have disclosed that expanding school choice and
shifting towards privatized education is in the best interest of students. Such efforts have been
met with both support and resistance and typically evoke political activists to toe the party line.
Questions surrounding which type of schools are eligible, or can apply, for publicly acquired
funds that seek to enrich students’ educational experience have ensued immense debate. From
this, challenges to the Blaine and Johnson Amendments have surfaced and are gaining
momentum.
The allocation of public funds to sectarian establishments is prohibited in thirty-eight
states. Within the state constitutions of these thirty-eight states exists an amendment, formally
known as a Blaine Amendment that protects public funds from being utilized by private
organizations.
While the written intent of Blaine Amendments is interpreted as preventing sectarian
institutions from receiving publicly acquired funds, the amendments have a deep-rooted history
that stems from anti-Catholic discrimination. Blaine Amendments were first introduced by James
Blaine in 1875 following a speech given by Ulysses S. Grant in which Grant advocated for a
Constitutional amendment barring sectarian institutions from acquiring public funds. Blaine’s
3
push for a federal initiative was largely unsuccessful however states that viewed the legislation
as beneficial began constructing statutory amendments that were in effect, Blaine Amendments.
While the amendment influences strong separation between church and state, opponents of the
Blaine Amendment claim that it discriminates against religiously affiliated associations.
While the Blaine Amendment prohibits sectarian institutions from utilizing public funds,
it is not the only amendment that attempts to maintain separation between public and private
entities. The Johnson Amendment was first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954. In short,
the Johnson Amendment is a U.S. tax code provision that prohibits all non-profit organizations
from endorsing or opposing political candidates. From inception until nearly 2010 the Johnson
Amendment wasn’t particularly controversial and remained unchallenged. In 2010 the
amendment was challenged by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who claim the
amendment violates the First Amendment. More recently, in 2016 then presidential candidate
Donald J. Trump vowed upon election to eliminate the Johnson Amendment. However, many
proponents of the amendment argue that it prevents houses of worship and other non-profit
organizations from being transformed into political tools. One such proponent, the Secular
Coalition for America, views President Trump’s effort to reduce or remove the amendment as
“an unprecedented attack on the separation of church and state.”
This work seeks to provide a historical overview of the Blaine and Johnson amendments,
as well as inform readers on the current status of funding religious schools. Additionally, this
work sheds light on potential implications for education funding.
Historical Overview
Blaine Amendment
4
James Blaine was a Republican congressman from Maine who thrice ran for president,
successfully securing the Republican nomination and losing a closely contested election to
Grover Cleveland in 1884 (Burke & Stepman, 2014; Green, 1992; Heytens, 2000; Klinkhamer,
1956; Meyer, 1951). Congressman Blaine came from a mixed Scottish-Presbyterian and Irish-
Catholic background, but was somewhat mysterious about his personal religious beliefs and sent
his children to Catholic schools. His “mixed decent” combined with his political sensibilities
made him an attractive Republican candidate following the scandal-plagued Grant
Administration and the disastrous election of 1874. The GOP of the 1870s needed to win the
electorally rich states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois to
overcome the Democratic post-Reconstruction “solid South” (Moore, 1978). Despite the
scandals of the 1860s and 1870s and the Panic of 1873 (Barreyre, 2011; Dove, 2014), the post-
Civil War era witnessed an American economic boom and an expansion of government
involvement in varied areas of life, including public schools (Meyer, Tyack & Nagel, 1979).
This economic expansion brought opportunities for millions of immigrants, especially Catholics
from the “poorer” areas of Europe who were looking for better lives (Lucille, 1951; Metress &
Metress, 2006). The massive numbers of Catholics coming to America provided workers for
factories and infrastructure, but also social concerns about a variety of issues, including the
nature of the growing public school system (Hirschmann, 2004; Jarrett, 1999).
With the future of American public education in mind, Blaine (with his allies in Congress
and the executive branch) argued for a constitutional amendment that easily passed the House
but came up just short in the Senate and was never sent to the states for ratification. The
proposed amendment stated that:
5
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of
public schools or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted
thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall
any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or
denominations (Meyer, 1951, p. 941).
President Grant pushed for passage in 1875 and, if it had survived the Senate, there was a strong
possibility of it becoming the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. The failure to do so
influences American public school education to this very day.
Both the politics of the moment and a long-term constitutional vision of the future played
a role in the amendment's drafting, attempted implementation and ultimate failure. There exists
some debate about the degree the role each of these factors played. Some twentieth century
scholars argued that the widespread effort to push for the Blaine Amendment marked a political
and constitutional belief of many 1870s Republicans that the 14th Amendment did not extend 1st
Amendment religious protections (and limitations) to the funding of public schools by the states
or local municipalities. Other writers argued that rather than an in-depth 14th Amendment
analysis and critique, pushers of the Blaine Amendment were mostly focused on daily politics
and the next election. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of these two positions,
and the two positions are not mutually exclusive. Blaine and the Amendment’s supporters
probably had both the politics of the moment and a long duree in mind when they advocated for
such a significant and deliberate change to the Constitution.
American hostility to Catholics was not new in the 1870s, but widespread immigration
from Catholic areas of Europe (Ireland, Southern Germany, Poland among others) during the
6
middle and latter decades of the nineteenth century changed the demographic makeup of major
American cities and greatly influence party politics (Carty, 2004). For a variety of reasons,
Catholics tended to vote Democratic. Catholics today are still more likely to vote Democratic
than their Protestant counterparts, though the disparity has changed over the decades (Smith &
Walker, 2013). In the 19th century, Protestants and native-born Americans were more likely to
vote Republican, at least in the northern states (Kelly, 2003). Republicans tended to push for
Protestant “American” values, and these tactics were often resented by Catholics in Northern
states, like New York and Pennsylvania, which were electorally crucial for Republicans to win
presidential elections. Politicians like Blaine (and quite notably William McKinley in 1896)
realized that changing demographics would make necessary some policy “adjustments” in order
to stay politically competitive. Blaine could see a politically dangerous trend growing in the
1870s. He argued that the debate of public schools
inevitably arouses sectarian feelings and leads to that bitterest and most deplorable of all
strifes, the strife between religious denominations. It seems to me that this question ought
to be settled in some definite and comprehensive way, and the only settlement that can be
final is the complete victory for non-sectarian schools (Green, 2010, p. 294).
Rather than submit to Catholic desires for publicly-funded schools that positively represented
their interests in way similar to the existing “Protestant” norm, Blaine thought moving against
religiously-oriented material in public schools wholesale would appease both Protestant concerns
of a public school “takeover” by Catholics and appease Catholics troubled by the openly
Protestant material already found in common school curriculum (Klinkhammer, 1956).
But the Amendment was not to be. Despite President Grant’s support and even help from
some congressional Democrats who swept to power in the House election of 1874 (only seven
7
“no” votes with 98 abstentions), the bill died in the Senate (Klinkhammer, 1956). Opposition to
the House-version of the bill came from a variety of directions, including Midwestern
Republicans who thought the language was not strong enough, Northeastern Senators weary of
the perceived anti-Catholic language, and southern Democrats opposed to a federal intrusion into
“states’ rights” (Klinkhammer, 1956).
It is interesting that the nominally Catholic-friendly Democrats controlled the house and
easily passed the Amendment, while the Republican-controlled Senate could not. “[The] Senate
voted 28–16 in favor of the amendment, with Republicans and Democrats along party lines. The
final result was 4 votes shy of the two-thirds necessary for passage, and the proposal failed”
(Green, 2010, p. 302). A Senate addition to the House-bill called for the necessity of (protestant)
bible-reading in public schools, obstentiably for the “moral health” of the nation. This perhaps
gave Senate Democrats the political capital necessary to vote no. Now a small footnote in
history, this addition was not a major political issue at the time, but would have made
Christianity the constitutionally official religion of the United States. After the Amendment’s
failure, Blaine himself seems to have lost interest in the subject, and his presidential campaign of
1884 made no effort to reignite the issue. Green (2010) believed that it was “more likely that
Blaine used it primarily for the political mileage” rather than any grander long-term vision for
the country (p. 296).
Johnson Amendment
Churches have enjoyed the benefit of tax exempt status since the foundation of our
country. From our beginnings as a British colony all the way through the establishment of our
first tax code, the federal government has always set churches separate from taxation. This
distinction has enabled churches to grow and prosper in our nation, but it was not without its own
8
set of strings attached. Beginning in the 1930s the federal government began to put limitations on
the exemption, and no tax code has been contested more than a changed to the 501(c)(3) tax
code, a change that became widely known as the Johnson Amendment.
The first restrictions placed on the tax exempt status of a church came in 1934 when
Congress amended the tax code to state that a church would lose its tax exemption if a
“substantial part of… [its] activities… is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to
influence legislation (Stanley, 2012, p. 243).” This addition was added by Senator David Reed
who, while during his reelection campaign, became entangled in a battle with a nonprofit
organization over disagreements with a bill he was sponsoring. The addition of the restrictions
was directly related to silencing these organizations. Twenty years later then Senator Lyndon B.
Johnson found himself in a similar situation with two nonprofit organizations, the Facts Forum
and the Committee for Constitutional Government, who were helping to financially fund his
reelection opponent Dudley Dougherty. After investigations requested by Johnson, the CCG and
Facts Forum were found to be operating within the current federal tax law because supporting a
candidate and not conducting any actions that could be viewed as influencing legislation or
lobbying.
On July 2nd 1954 Johnson appeared on the floor of the US Senate and offered an
Amendment to a pending tax overhaul bill. The Amendment changed the text that read
“influence legislation” and replaced it with “influence legislation, and which does not participate
in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign
on behalf of any candidate for public office (100 Cong. Rec. 9,604, 1954).” The bill was adopted
with little effort, no debate, committee discussion or considerations for its implications on
9
churches, but the “consequences of this restriction have been far-reaching in both the religious
and political arenas (Goldfeder & Terry, 2017, p. 216).”
Current Status
Blaine Amendments
Since inception, a total of thirty-eight states have enacted some form of Blaine
Amendment. These states are noted in Appendix 1. The remaining states that do not have a
Blaine Amendment are: Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Louisiana, Iowa, and Ohio. While some
states elected to adopt similar variations of the federal Blaine Amendment, many states have
implemented a brief statement consisting of no more than a sentence (e.g., Arizona, Kansas,
Nevada, etc.) Although there are variances in the breadth and depth of state Blaine Amendments,
it is very clear that each of the thirty-eight states have imposed some form of legislation that
prohibits private, religious institutions from receiving public funds.
In addition to the barrier constructed by a Blaine Amendment, some states have enacted
compelled support clauses that prohibit states from requiring taxpayers to support religious
institutions. In sum, twenty seven states have compelled support clauses in their State
constitutions. As identified by Burke and Stepman (2014), Frank Kemerer found that twenty
states that have a Blaine Amendment have a compelled support clause as well (p. 642). Of these
states, Kemerer classified seventeen of them as restrictive. Interestingly, only one state
constitution, North Carolina does not have a Blaine Amendment or compelled support clause.
North Carolina does not require private schools to hire certified teachers or to adhere to state
curriculum, making it increasingly difficult to compare education settings within the state (Public
Schools First, 2018).
10
In reviewing various state constitutions, it is increasingly apparent that the absence of a
Blaine Amendment does not mean there is no obstruction of the financial avenue between
religious schools and state funds. State grants made available for private schools and voucher
systems are common practice in many states that do not have a Blaine Amendment.
Additionally, state accountability standards have become a very contentious issue when
discussing funding private religious schools. Arguments in favor of restricting religious schools
from receiving public funds frequently reference accountability metrics (e.g., state testing,
teacher evaluation). Religiously affiliated schools have significantly less oversight, are not
required to be accredited, and are exempt from subjecting students to state assessments.
Johnson Amendments
The Johnson Amendment is currently an active US law and no legislation has been
passed thus far to limit its scope or interpretation (Byrd, 2018). However, this does not imply
that efforts have not been made seeking removal of the Amendment. Those wishing to repeal the
Johnson Amendment have found a new ally in President Donald Trump.
Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I
will get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives
of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that — remember. -
Donald Trump
During the 2016 election then presidential candidate Donald Trump vowed to eliminate the
Johnson Amendment, citing that it goes against our first amendment right to freedom of speech.
The president played to a growing concern over the federal government's reach that has been at
the center of the Johnson Amendment debate for years. Trump and those seeking the removal of
the Johnson Amendment argue that the Amendment is too far reaching as it limits freedom of
speech (Shellnut, 2017; Wilson, 2017). “Government telling pastors what they can or cannot say
from the pulpit is not constitutionally valid or laudable. It’s a breach of free speech (Presson,
11
2018).” Proponents of removal signal that the Amendment is unconstitutional because religious
entities are not permitted to endorse or speak freely without fear of penalty from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). Conversely, supporters of the Amendment argue that the Johnson
Amendment does little to limit free speech and serves more as a barrier to safeguarding and
protecting campaign finance laws (Laycock, 2017). Supporters additionally argue that tax-
exempt status is the balancing privilege extended to nonprofits and religious entities from openly
endorsing and supporting political candidates. Interestingly, there are many religious entities
who are not in favor of repealing the Johnson Amendment as they favor the separation of church
and state and do not wish to entertain politics in their institutions (Banks, 2017; Salter, 2018).
The law was first put to use in 2000 in Branch Ministries v Rossotti when the IRS
revoked tax-exemption status after Branch Ministries placed a full -page advertisement in local
newspapers urging Christians not to vote for the presidential candidate Bill Clinton (Goldfeder &
Terry, 2017, p. 227). This was the first time the courts affirmed the tax law passed in 1954, but
it is not the first time the tax code was challenged. The most common challenge to the code is
based under a first amendment freedom of speech violation, however to date all those challenges
have failed. In Cammarano v. United States and Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v.
United States the courts upheld the Johnson Amendment, stating that “tax exemption is a
privilege.” Similarly in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington the court
reiterated that “Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying.”
More recently, in May 2017, President Trump signed an executive order outlining a more
lenient policy regarding the interpretations and enforcement of the Johnson Amendment for these
foundations and nonprofits (Gjelten, 2018; Wilson, 2017). Additionally, an attempt to repeal the
Johnson Amendment came up just short when the Legislative Branch sought to redefine the tax
12
code. In November of 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a new tax code,
repealing the Johnson Amendment and thus providing an avenue for tax-exempt nonprofits and
churches to endorse political candidates openly without fear of penalty (Shellnut, 2017; Singer,
2017). The provision did not make it through the merging process with the Senate’s version of
the tax bill (Shellnut, 2017). More recently, the Johnson Amendment has come under fire from
those hoping the IRS will levy fines so that they can litigate the Amendment in open court
(Salter, 2018). Missouri’s State Attorney General Josh Hawley. Hawley is planning a campaign
speech at Hannibal-LaGrange University during a University’s scheduled Chapel service. This
may place the University in a precarious situation as the speech would be in clear violation of the
Johnson Amendment (Salter, 2018).
Future Implications
Blaine Amendments
In the near future, it is likely that the Supreme Court of the United States will be faced
with determining the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments. If Blaine Amendments are found
to be unconstitutional, there may be a significant amount of funding diverted to religious
education institutions. A decrease in public education funding will have an adverse effect on
quality of the education program provided by public school districts.
Conversely, an elimination of Blaine Amendments will increase school choice options for
students and their families. Advocates for the expansion of school choice view Blaine
Amendments as an unconstitutional barrier that prevents parents from selecting the educational
setting they desire.
If, upon judicial review, Blaine Amendments are found to be constitutional, stringent
funding barriers between the state and religious institutions will remain intact. School choice
13
options will remain limited to non-secular schools and religious schools will continue generating
their own funding.
Johnson Amendment
A removal may submerge nonprofit organizations and religious institutions into a sea of
political influence, a new arena of politicized agendas using the contexts of religion, education,
and other foundations as a means to propel their political schemes (Fact Sheet on Johnson
Amendment, n.d.; Laycock, 2017; Singer, 2017;). Religious schools and the school choice
movement may benefit from the removal of the Johnson Amendment as supporters would now
have the legal means to support candidates over others in terms of self-interest, funding, and
ideological agenda. Likewise, campaign finance laws emerge as a gray area. There is no limit to
tax-deductible donations to churches and the donation need not be transparent (Laylock, 2017).
“So if tax-exempt charities were allowed to endorse candidates, it would open a huge loophole in
the campaign finance laws and create a very unlevel playing field (Laycock, 2017, p.10).” This
unlevel playing field could mean more donations to tax-deductible religious organizations, in
hopes of both supporting religious education and the school choice movement. Further, it may
mean less public funding for public common schools.
Concluding Thoughts
While the destinies of Blaine and Johnson Amendments are unknown, it has become
increasingly apparent that their existence will continue to endure public and political scrutiny.
Many argue that each of the aforementioned amendments play a role in maintaining separation
between church and state and, furthermore, that their removal would be detrimental to public
education. If Blaine Amendments were eliminated, via states’ decisions or found to be
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, sectarian institutions would be free
14
to access and apply for publicly acquired funds. Such an effort would divert funds away from
public education systems, leaving them with significantly less personnel and resources. It can be
argued that eliminating Blaine Amendments will strengthen the platform necessary for
expanding school choice efforts. Removal of the Johnson Amendment may also have a similar
effect. If non-profit organizations acquire the ability to endorse or oppose political candidates,
religiously affiliated schools may have the means necessary to advance political agendas that
seek to privatize education.
15
References
100 Cong. Rec. 9,604 (1954) (Statement of Sen. Lyndon Johnson)
Banks, A. (2017, August 16). Thousands of faith leaders ask Congress to protect Johnson
Amendment. Religion News Service. Retrieved from
https://religionnews.com/2017/08/16/thousands-of-faith-leaders-ask-congress-to-
maintain-johnson-amendment/
Barreyre, N. (2011). The Politics of Economic Crises: The Panic of 1873, the End of
Reconstruction, and the Realignment of American Politics. The Journal of the Gilded Age
and Progressive Era, 10(4), 403-423.
Burke, L. M., & Stepman, J. (2014). Breaking down Blaine Amendments’ indefensible
barrier to education choice. Journal of School Choice, 8(4), 637-654.
Byrd, D. (2018, September 12). By a Large Margin, Majority of Americans Want Johnson
Amendment in Place. Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Retrieved from
https://bjconline.org/majority-of-americans-want-johnson-amendment-protections-in-
place-091218/
Carty, T. J. (2004). Popish Plots, Religious Liberty, and the Emerging Face of American
Catholicism before 1928. In A Catholic in the White House? (pp. 11-25). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
16
Dove, J. A. (2014). Financial markets, fiscal constraints, and municipal debt: lessons and
evidence from the panic of 1873. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(1), 71-106.
Fact Sheet on Johnson Amendment: Trump Foundation Litigation and Pending Legislation
(n.d.). National Council of Nonprofits. Retrieved September 26, 2018, from
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/fact-sheet-johnson-amendment-trump-foundation-
litigation-and-pending-legislation
Gjelten, T. (2018, March 22). Another Effort To Get Rid Of The ‘Johnson Amendment’ Fails.
NPR. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/22/596158332/another-effort-to-get-rid-of-the-johnson-
andment-fails
Goldfeder, M. A., & Terry, M. K. (n.d.). To Repeal or Not Repeal: The Johnson
Amendment. The University of Memphis Law Review, 48, 209-255.
Green, S. K. (1992). The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered. The American Journal of
Legal History, 36(1), 38-69.
Green, S. K. (2010). The second disestablishment: Church and state in nineteenth-
century America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heytens, T. J. (2000). School choice and state constitutions. Virginia Law Review, 117-
162.
Hirschman, C. (2004). The Role of Religion in the Origins and Adaptation of Immigrant
Groups in the United States. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1206-1233.
Jaret, C. (1999). Troubled by newcomers: Anti-immigrant attitudes and action during two
eras of mass immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, 9-39.
17
Kelly, P. J. (2003). The election of 1896 and the restructuring of Civil War memory. Civil
War History, 49(3), 254-280.
Klinkhamer, S. M. C. (1956). The Blaine Amendment of 1875: Private Motives for
Political Action. Catholic Historical Review, 15-49.
Komer, R. D., & Neily, C. (2007). School choice and state constitutions: A guide to
designing school choice programs. Institute for Justice.
Laycock, D. (2017). Free speech in the pulpit: Don’t repeal the Johnson Amendment, fix
it. The Christian Century, 134(6), 10-11.
Lucille, S. (1951). The Causes of Polish Immigration to the United States. Polish
American Studies, 85-91.
Metress, S. P., & Metress, E. K. (2006). Irish in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: MSU Press.
Meyer, A. W. (1951). The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Harvard Law
Review, 64(6), 939-945.
Meyer, J. W., Tyack, D., Nagel, J., & Gordon, A. (1979). Public education as nation-
building in America: Enrollments and bureaucratization in the American states, 1870-
1930. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 591-613.
Moore, J. T. (1978). Redeemers Reconsidered: Change and Continuity in the Democratic
South, 1870-1900. The Journal of Southern History, 44(3), 357-378.
Presson, L. (2018, September 22). Hawley is right to oppose Johnson Amendment. Southeast
Missourian. Retrieved from https://www.semissourian.com/story/2553270.html
Salter, J. (2018 September 28). Hawley to speak at university chapel, despite IRS guideline. The
Eagle. Retrieved from
https://www.theeagle.com/news/politics/hawley-to-speak-at-university-chapel-despite-ir
18
-guideline/article_a579bc7e-f1a3-509d-a82b-e0d845914483.html
Shellnutt, K. (2017, December 2017). Johnson Amendment Repeal Removed from Final GOP
Tax Bill. Christianity Today. Retrieved from
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/johnson-amendment-repeal-
blocked-final-gop-tax-bill-byrd.html
Singer, P. (2017, November 17). Tax bill’s repeal of ‘Johnson Amendment’ could cost more than
$1 billion. USA Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/tax-bills-repeal-johnson-
amendment-could-cost-taxpayers-more-than-1-billion/852554001/
Smith, L. E., & Walker, L. D. (2013). Belonging, believing, and group behavior:
Religiosity and voting in American presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly,
66(2), 399-413.
Stanley, E. W. (2012). LBJ, The IRS, and Churches: The Unconstitutionality of the
Johnson Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court precedent. Regent University Law
Review, 24(2), 237-282.
Trump, D. J. (2018, October 01). Remarks by President Trump at National Prayer
Breakfast. Speech presented at National Prayer Breakfast in DC, Washington.
Wilson, J. (2017, May 9). Donald Trump is right to want to repeal the Johnson Amendment.
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/05/09/donald-trump-right-want-repeal-
johnson-amendment-essay
19
Appendix 1
Blaine Amendments
Federal (Proposed)
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools,
or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be
under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be
divided between religious sects or denominations.
Alabama
“No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the
absolute control of the state, other than normal schools established by law for the professional
training of teachers for the public schools of the state, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the
members elected to each house.”
Alabama Const. Art. IV, § 73.
“No money raised for the support of the public schools shall be appropriated to or used for the
support of any sectarian or denominational school.”
Alabama Const. Art. XIV, § 263.
Alaska
“The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to
all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and
institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from
public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
Alaska Const. Art. VII, § 1
Arizona
“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship,
exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.”
20
Arizona Const. Art. II, § 12.
California
“No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational
school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor
shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted,
directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State.”
California Const. Art. IX, § 8
“Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other
municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever,
or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to
support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any
religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of
personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any city, city and county, town, or
other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever;
provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to
Section 3 of Article XVI.”
California Const. Art. XVI, § 5.
Colorado
“No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to
any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any
denominational or sectarian institution or association.”
Colorado Const. Art. V, § 34.
“Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other
public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys
whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to
help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or
scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall
any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or
any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.”
Colorado Const. Art. IX, § 7.
21
Delaware
“No portion of any fund now existing, or which may hereafter be appropriated, or raised by tax,
for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of any sectarian, church
or denominational school; provided, that all real or personal property used for school purposes,
where the tuition is free, shall be exempt from taxation and assessment for public purposes.”
Delaware Const. Art X, § 3.
Florida
“No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from
the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or
in aid of any sectarian institution.”
Florida Const. Art. I, § 3.
Georgia
“No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any
church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.”
Georgia Const. Art. I, § II, ¶ VII.
Hawaii
“The State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of
public schools free from sectarian control … nor shall public funds be appropriated for the
support or benefit of any sectarian or nonsectarian private educational institution, except that
proceeds of special purpose revenue bonds authorized or issued under section 12 of Article VII
may be appropriated to finance or assist: 1. Not-for-profit corporations that provide early
childhood education and care facilities serving the general public; and 2. Not-for-profit private
non-sectarian and sectarian elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities.”
Hawaii Const. Art. X, § 1.
Idaho
“Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public
corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys
whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or
religious purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college,
university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or
22
religious denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other
personal property ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation, to any church or for
any sectarian or religious purpose; provided, however, that a health facilities authority, as
specifically authorized and empowered by law, may finance or refinance any private, not for
profit, health facilities owned or operated by any church or sectarian religious society, through
loans, leases, or other transactions.”
Idaho Const. Art. IX, § 5.
Illinois
“Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other
public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever,
anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school,
academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by
any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money,
or other personal property ever be made by the State, or any such public corporation, to any
church, or for any sectarian purpose.”
Illinois Const. Art. X, § 3.
Indiana
“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological
institution.”
Indiana Const. Art. 1, § 6.
Kansas
“No religious sect or sects shall control any part of the public educational funds.”
Kansas Const. Art. 6, § 6(c).
Kentucky
“No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for
educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or
denominational school.”
Kentucky Const. § 189.
23
Maryland
“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law
establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall
provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.” Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 1. “The
School Fund of the State shall be kept inviolate, and appropriated only to the purposes of
Education.”
Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 3.
Massachusetts
“No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or
authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of
founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school,
or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive
control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the
Commonwealth or federal authority or both … and no such grant, appropriation or use of public
money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of
founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society. Nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prevent the Commonwealth from making grants-in-aid to private
higher educational institution or to students or parents or guardians of students attending such
institutions.”
Massachusetts Const. Amend. Art. XVIII, § 2.
Michigan
“No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect
or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be
appropriated for any such purpose.”
Michigan Const. Art. I, § 4.
“No public monies or property shall be appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, by the
legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state directly or indirectly to aid or
maintain any private, denominational or other non-public, pre-elementary, elementary, or
secondary school. No payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher,
subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall be provided, directly or indirectly, to
support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person at any such nonpublic
school or at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such
nonpublic school students ….”
24
Michigan Const. Art. VIII, § 2
Minnesota
“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or
religious or theological seminaries.”
Minnesota Const. Art. I, § 16.
“In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools
wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious
sect are promulgated or taught.”
Minnesota Const. Art. XIII, § 2.
Mississippi
“No religious or other sect or sects shall ever control any part of the school or other educational
funds of this state; nor shall any funds be appropriated toward the support of any sectarian
school, or to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free
school.”
Mississippi Const. Art. VIII, § 208.
Missouri
“That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any
church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher
thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against
any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.”
Missouri Const. Art. I, § 7.
“Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other
municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever,
anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or
sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution
of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor
shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any
county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian
purpose whatever.”
Missouri Const. Art. IX, § 8.
25
Montana
“(1) The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not
make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any
grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy,
seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in
part by any church, sect, or denomination. (2) This section shall not apply to funds from federal
sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.”
Montana Const. Art. X, § 6.
Nebraska
“1. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall
not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the
state or a political subdivision thereof; Provided, that the Legislature may provide that the state
or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or
controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for
the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is
from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.
2. All public schools shall be free of sectarian instruction.
3. The state shall not accept money or property to be used for sectarian purposes; Provided, that
the Legislature may provide that the state may receive money from the federal government and
distribute it in accordance with the terms of any such federal grants, but no public funds of the
state, any political subdivision, or any public corporation may be added thereto.
4. A religious test or qualification shall not be required of any teacher or student for admission or
continuance in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by public funds or
taxation.”
Nebraska Const. Art. VII, § 11.
Nevada
“No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used
for sectarian purpose [sic].”
Nevada Const. Art. 11, § 10.
New Hampshire
26
“Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the
use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”
New Hampshire Const. Pt. SECOND, Art. 83.
New Mexico
“[N]o part of the proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of any lands granted to the state by
congress, or any other funds appropriated, levied or collected for educational purposes, shall be
used for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university.”
New Mexico Const. Art. XII, § 3.
“Provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools
which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control, and said
schools shall always be conducted in English.”
New Mexico Const. Art. XXI, § 4.
New York
“Neither the state nor any subdivision thereof, shall use its property or credit or any public
money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance,
other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part
under the control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational
tenet or doctrine is taught, but the legislature may provide for the transportation of children to
and from any school or institution of learning.”
New York Const. Art XI, § 3.
North Dakota
“A high degree of intelligence, patriotism, integrity and morality on the part of every voter in a
government by the people being necessary in order to insure the continuance of that government
and the prosperity and happiness of the people, the legislative assembly shall make provision for
the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools which shall be open to all
children of the state of North Dakota and free from sectarian control. This legislative
requirement shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of North
Dakota.”
North Dakota Const. Art VIII, § 1.
27
“The legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout
the state, beginning with the primary and extending through all grades up to and including
schools of higher education, except that the legislative assembly may authorize tuition, fees and
service charges to assist in the financing of public schools of higher education.”
North Dakota Const. Art VIII, § 2.
Oklahoma
“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of
religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
Oklahoma Const. Art. II, § 5.
Oregon
“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic], or theological
institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous [sic] services in
either house of the Legislative Assembly.”
Oregon Const. Art. I, § 5.
Pennsylvania
“No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be
appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”
Pennsylvania Const. Art. 3, § 15.
South Carolina
“No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political
subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational
institution.”
South Carolina Const. Ann. Art. XI, § 4.
South Dakota
“No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of any sectarian
or religious society or institution.” South Dakota Const. Art. VI, § 3. “No appropriation of lands,
money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or
28
any county or municipality within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality
within the state accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property
to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or
institution aided or supported by the state.”
South Dakota Const. Art. VIII, § 16.
Texas
“No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or
religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be
appropriated for any such purposes.” Texas Const. Art. I, § 7. “The permanent school fund and
the available school fund may not be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian
school.”
Texas Const. Art. VII, § 5(c).
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
“The General Assembly shall not make any appropriation of public funds, personal property, or
real estate to any church or sectarian society, or any association or institution of any kind
whatever which is entirely or partly, directly or indirectly, controlled by any church or sectarian
society .…”
Virginia Const. Art. IV, § 16.
Washington
“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship,
exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment .…”
Washington Const. Art. I, § 11.
“All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free
from sectarian control or influence.”
Washington Const. Art. IX, § 4.
Wisconsin
29
“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or
religious or theological seminaries.”
Wisconsin Const. Art. I, § 18.
Wyoming
“No money of the state shall ever be given or appropriated to any sectarian or religious society or
institution.”
Wyoming Const. Art. 1, § 19.
“No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to
any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any
denominational or sectarian institution or association.”
Wyoming Const. Art. 3, § 36.