News Release

November 12, 2001

Cato legal brief argues for school vouchers in Cleveland
Parental choice of sectarian schools is not state-sponsored religion

WASHINGTON—The Cato Institute, joined by the Center for Individual Freedom, the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, and the Goldwater Institute, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Ohio's school choice case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The legal issue is whether Cleveland's voucher program violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the large majority of participating students elect to use the vouchers at religious schools. The brief, written by private attorney Erik S. Jaffe, argues that "private choice breaks the nexus between government decision making and any benefits to religious institutions."

In May 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of vouchers but rejected the program for technical procedural reasons. That led to a second lawsuit. In December 2000 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the Cleveland voucher system impermissibly subsidized religious education. On September 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve the contrary decisions of the appellate court and the state court.

According to the brief, "The Ohio voucher program allows for genuinely independent private choice." That includes not only religious schools and other private schools, but also "public schools with tutoring, magnet schools, and community [charter] schools." Rather than favoring religion, the brief explains, the state provides precisely the opposite incentives and offers "greater funding for secular educational alternatives than the funding provided under the voucher program."

The Cleveland program provides vouchers, each worth $2,250, to approximately 4,000 children (grades K-to-8) who may use them at participating private or public schools. Not a single public school chose to participate, but more than 50 private schools accept the vouchers, payable toward full tuition, which is capped at $2,500. Meanwhile, Cleveland public schools recently satisfied only three of the state's 27 performance criteria.

"Apparently, voucher opponents reject the notion that the schools exist to serve the students," said Robert A. Levy, Cato senior fellow in constitutional studies. "Instead, they would compel students to advance the interests of a public school monopoly."

"Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Brief of Amicus Curiae"