New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Textbook Loan Program

In Moses v. Ruszkowski, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 13, 2018), the New Mexico Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision held that New Mexico's textbook loan program does not violate the state constitution. The program provides for the loan of secular textbooks to private and parochial school students.  In 2015, the state Supreme Court held that the program was unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) However in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court  granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran Church decision. (See prior posting.) Now on remand, the state Supreme Court reversed itself, saying in part:

On remand, we conclude that this Court’s previous interpretation of Article 16 XII, Section 3 raises concerns under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To avoid constitutional concerns, we hold that the textbook loan program, which provides a generally available public benefit to students, does not result in the use of public funds in support of private schools as prohibited by Article XII, Section 3. We also hold that the textbook loan program is consistent with Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution, which addresses appropriations for educational purposes, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, which limits “any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation.”

Chief Justice Nakamura and Justice Clingman dissented. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

New Mexico Supreme Court Files Amended Opinion Again Striking Down Textbook Loan Program

Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied a motion for a rehearing in its recent Blaine Amendment decision (see prior posting) invalidating the state statute that provides for the loan of secular textbooks to private and parochial school students, but substituted a new opinion for the one handed down last month. The primary change in its new opinion in Moses v. Skandera, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 23, 2015), is the addition of paragraphs 28 and 29 rejecting the argument that since funding for the textbook program comes from payments to the state under the federal Mineral Lands Leasing Act, this preempts state constitutional limits.  The court said in part:

The MLLA has neither expressly nor impliedly preempted the application of Article XII, Section 3 because restricting funds appropriated for educational purposes to public schools is not incompatible with the purposes announced in the MLLA. Thus, Intervenors’ argument that funds from the MLLA that are used for the Instructional Material Fund are federal funds which are “not subject to state constitutional limitations” is without merit.

New Mexico Supreme Court Invalidates State Textbook Loans To Private School Students

In Moses v. Skandera, (NM Sup. Ct., Nov. 12, 2015), the New Mexico Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion upheld a state constitutional challenge to the New Mexico Instructional Material Law.  That statute allows the state to lend secular textbooks to private and parochial school students.  New Mexico's Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 3 (a Blaine amendment provision) provides in part:

no ... funds appropriated, levied or collected for educational purposes, shall be used for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university.

Reversing the state court of appeal (see prior posting), the state Supreme Court held that this constitutional provision is more restrictive that the state or federal Establishment Clause and bars textbook loans:

Private schools benefit because they do not have to buy instructional materials with money they obtain by tuition or donations and they can divert such money to other uses in their schools. Consistent with the rules of statutory construction and the majority of jurisdictions interpreting similar state constitutional provisions, the IML violates Article XII, Section 3 because it provides support to private schools

Albuquerque Journal reports on the decision.

A Survey of Law School Books On Law and Religion

With the new semester beginning in U.S. law schools, here is a listing casebooks and other publications designed for courses in law and religion:

Ravitch and Backer's Law and Religion: Cases, Materials, and Readings, 3d, (West, 2015).

Edward J. Larson, Creationism in the Classroom: Cases, Statutes, and Commentary, (West, 2013).

Leslie C. Griffin, Law and Religion: Cases and Materials, 3d, (Foundation Press, 2013).

Michael W. McConnell, John H. Garvey, Thomas C. Berg, Religion and the Constitution, Third Edition, (Wolters Kluwer, 2011).

Hon. John T. Noonan Jr. & Edward M. Gaffney Jr., Religious Freedom: History, Cases, and Other Materials on the Interaction of Religion and Government, 3d, (West, 2010).

Leslie C. Griffin, Law and Religion: Cases in Context, (Wolters Kluwer, 2010).

W. Cole Durham & Brett G. Scharffs, Law and Religion: National, International, and Comparative Law Perspectives, (Wolters Kluwer, 2009).

Frank S. Ravitch, Law and Religion, A Reader: Concepts, Cases and Theory, 2d ,(West, 2008).

Stephen G. Gey, Religion and the State, Second Edition, (LexisNexis, 2006).

Thomas C. Berg, The State and Religion in a Nutshell, 2d, (West, 2004).

UPDATE: Conkle's Constitutional Law - The Religion Clauses, 2d ,(Turning Point Series) (Foundation Press, 2009).

Texas State Board of Education Amends Textbook Review Rules To Lessen Influence of Social Conservatives

AP reports that on Friday, the 15-member Texas State Board of Education unanimously adopted new rules governing the citizen review panels that review proposed textbooks.  The rule changes are likely to lessen the influence of social conservatives who in recent years have influenced the coverage of topics such as evolution, climate change and the role of religion in American history.  The new rules give priority to teachers and professors to serve on the textbook review panels in their areas of expertise. They also allow the state board to appoint outside experts to check the objections raised by review panels. The new rules require that each textbook be reviewed by at least two panel members, require panels to submit majority and minority reports, and limit board of education contact with panel members to prevent pressure on panels. Earlier this week the board defeated a proposal that would have allowed removal of review panel members for inappropriate behavior. Conservative State Board of Education member David Bradley complained: "liberals are really trying to make it difficult for Christians and conservatives to have a voice in public education."