Seeking a Clean, Clear Line : Justices rightly rule against school, but church-state issues remain foggy

The U.S. Supreme Court reached the only defensible decision it could Monday when it ruled that creation of a school district specifically for a religious group violates the First Amendment.

This closely watched case involved the Village of Kiryas Joel, north of New York City. Village residents are almost all members of the Satmar Hasidic sect of Judaism. Most of the children attend religious schools that do not offer the special services to which handicapped students are legally entitled.

Handicapped Satmar children had attended a public special-needs school nearby, but parents complained that their children were uncomfortable there because of their beliefs, special dress and use of the Yiddish language.

The parents wanted their own district largely so their handicapped children could be schooled in their own community. In 1989, the New York Legislature created a school district at Kiryas Joel. In signing the bill, Gov. Mario Cuomo noted the district’s religious makeup and said that the bill was a “good-faith effort to solve the unique problem” associated with providing special education services to Satmar children. The high court disagreed. The village district has authority to establish a full range of elementary and secondary schools, but it instead runs a special education program for just 40 Hasidic children.

That special-needs school does not teach religion; that was not the issue. Rather, by a 6-to-3 majority the court held that when the New York Legislature drew political boundaries deliberately along religious lines, a “fusion of governmental and religious functions” occurred. Thus the school district was a form of “explicit religious gerrymandering,” unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s bar against government’s establishment of religion.

The five concurring majority opinions reveal a court still uncertain about where and how to separate church and state. But the Kiryas Joel case nonetheless underscores the majority’s welcome appreciation that this court needs to clarify the lines it has drawn in recent years in this crucial and emotional matter.