Unintended Impacts of “Quality Control” on School Quality in Louisiana

My colleagues from the School Choice Demonstration Project and I just released the official third year reports on the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). In addition to the experimental study on student test scores, my coauthors and I released a descriptive analysis of the types of private schools that chose to participate in the voucher program.

Positive Test Score Trend

The main report indicates that the LSP had negative impacts on student math test scores for the first two years of the program. Nonetheless, the program did not have any statistically significant impacts on student achievement by the end of year three. These results can be found in Figure 1 (from the report) below:

Source: Mills & Wolf (2017). “How Has the Louisiana Scholarship Program Affected Students? A Comprehensive Summary of Effects After Three Years.” School Choice Demonstration Project, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas.

This upward trend is not unusual. The recent meta-analysis of 19 experimental voucher studies shows that private school choice programs are better at shaping test scores after a few years. This is likely because children need to adjust to their new educational settings and private institutions must respond to the environmental shift in the market for schooling.

No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: An Anti-Federalist “Immigration” Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote this week on the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” (H.R. 3003). The bill’s primary purpose is to threaten and punish cities and states that fail to do the bidding of federal immigration agents. It would also make it more difficult to hold state and local officers accountable for violations of the Constitution committed pursuant to federal commands.  

H.R. 3003 would impose mandates on states

The heart of the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would prohibit any policies that restrict state or local law enforcement officials from “assisting or cooperating with Federal law enforcement entities, officials, or other personnel regarding the enforcement of” immigration laws (pp. 2-3). It would also ban restrictions on collecting people’s immigration status, reporting them to the federal government, or complying with requests for that information from the federal government.

These provisions purport to remove the authority of state or local police departments or state or local legislatures to determine how their law enforcement resources are used. This violates a basic principle of federalism, which many conservatives have long championed, that the federal government should leave states to experiment with their own policies. I wonder whether Republican members of Congress would still support this legislation if they could imagine Democrats applying this same principle to federal gun laws in the future.

H.R. 3003 would attempt to compel compliance with federal grants

Supreme Court precedent suggests that Congress cannot actually enforce such a ban on state or local policies. Perhaps with this in mind, the bill attempts to enforce “compliance” with its possibly unconstitutional mandates by imposing monetary penalties. It would strip any non-compliant state or locality of any “grant administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, or naturalization” (pp. 3-4).

The Supreme Court has held that there are limits to this type of federal coercion of states, but it’s still unclear where exactly those limits are. My colleague Trevor Burrus has written about the constitutional issues here with regard to a similar proposal a few years ago. As he wrote then:

The absolute monetary size of the grant certainly has something to do with coercion, but other factors can be taken into account… Therefore, it is legitimate to look not just to the size of the grants, but to the type of grants used to induce states into not passing [“sanctuary” laws]. Highway funding is one thing, but national security, law enforcement, and FEMA grants are entirely different.

Regardless of its constitutionality, however, the important issue here is that this type of heavy-handed approach to federal-state relations is at odds with federalist principles and many years of conservative and Republican rhetoric. Federalism is an important safeguard for liberty, and in its exuberance to obtain a certain policy result, Congress should not lose sight of this principle.

Preferably for Reasons of Good Policy rather than Political Revenge, Trump and Republicans Should End Subsidies for the OECD

If I was Captain Ahab in a Herman Melville novel, my Moby Dick would be the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. I have spent more than 15 years fighting that Paris-based bureaucracy. Even to the point that the OECD threatened to throw me in a Mexican jail.

So when I had a chance earlier today to comment on the OECD’s statist agenda, I could barely contain myself

Notwithstanding the glitch at the beginning (the perils of a producer talking in my ear), I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to castigate the OECD.

Kate’s Law: A Waste of Federal Resources

The House of Representatives will vote on a bill this week titled “Kate’s Law” (H.R. 3004). While it is nominally an “immigration” bill, its principal aim relates to criminal justice—namely, an increase in the maximum sentences for immigrants who reenter the country illegally after a deportation. The bill is a waste of federal resources. It would likely balloon America’s population of nonviolent prisoners, while not protecting Americans against serious criminals.

Kate’s Law Would Not Have Helped Kate

The bill’s namesake is Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old medical sales rep killed in San Francisco in 2015. Her killer was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who was in the country without status after five removals. Proponents of this bill—providing lengthier prison sentences for people who reenter the country after a removal—believe that this would have somehow helped Kate Steinle. This assertion cannot withstand a moment’s contact with the facts of the case, which I have previously laid out in detail here.

After his last three apprehensions, the government prosecuted Lopez-Sanchez for felony illegal reentry. He served 15 years in federal prison in three five-year increments. None of the facts of this case would have changed if he had served those 15 years consecutively. Indeed, because Lopez-Sanchez never actually made it across the border without being caught since 1997, the only reason that he ended up in San Francisco is because the Bureau of Prisons inexplicably decided to ignore a request for transfer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, it shipped him to the city based on a 20-year-old marijuana charge—an offense that no longer even exists in the city. Thus, deterrence against reentry has no relevance whatsoever to this case.

The Provisions of Kate’s Law

This legislation introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) should not be confused with other bills of the same name introduced in the House and the Senate by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), respectively. The entire purpose of the prior iterations of “Kate’s Law” was to create mandatory minimum sentences for crossing the border illegally after a removal. Indeed, the alternate title for the bills was the “Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act.” This new Kate’s Law, however, mercifully contains no mandatory minimum sentences—a sign that criminal justice reformers’ criticisms of them (including Cato’s) have started to penetrate the mainstream.

But the purpose of the law in the broader sense remains: trying to lock up more immigrants for longer periods. Most of the actual text comes from section 3705 of the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 744) passed in June 2013, but the Kate’s Law authors have added several odious provisions. The heart of the bill would create a new 10-year maximum sentence for any person removed or denied entry more than two times who reenters. The current maximum for regular reentry is just 2 years. It would increase the maximum sentences for people who reenter after being convicted of various criminal offenses—including for immigration offenses—to up to 25 years.

Kate’s Law deletes two important provisions from the S. 744 language that would have protected from prosecution non-felon juveniles (p. 772-73) and humanitarian groups that provide immigrants caught in deserts or mountains food, water, or transportation to safety, which are sometimes the target of the “aiding and abetting” statutes (p. 774). Kate’s Law would also prohibit challenging the legality or validity of a prior removal order, which is a common defense in these cases. If the earlier removal was not valid, as in at least one case where a U.S. citizen was deported, it should not be the basis of prosecution.

Supreme Court Returns Sanity to Debate Over Travel Ban

In what can only be seen as a big win for the Trump administration, the unanimous Supreme Court both took up the travel-ban cases and allowed most of the relevant executive order to go into effect. There may be lower-court litigation in coming months over the meaning of the “bona fide relationship” to an American person or entity that exempts someone from the travel restriction. Given that the second executive order on this subject, unlike the first, specifically exempted greencard holders, students, family members, those with established business ties, and others, is there even anybody who benefits from this carve-out who wasn’t already exempt from the travel ban?

At the end of the day, and regardless of the policy merits of the executive order—which doesn’t seem well-crafted to address security concerns, but I, like the judiciary, lack access to classified information—the Supreme Court doesn’t seem likely to be swayed by the idiosyncratic atmospherics (campaign speeches, tweets, and all) and will instead focus on a close textual reading of the laws at issue. It seems that all the justices want to return to the “presumption of regularity” that applies to presidential decisions on national security. As Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, wrote in partial concurrence, the decision to stay the lower courts’ rulings—to allow most of the travel ban to go into effect—is an implicit recognition that the government is likely to succeed on the merits.

Of course, the case might not get to the merits at all, because of standing and mootness concerns that would throw out the lawsuits altogether—or because the travel ban will expire before any final ruling. We shall see soon enough, because the Court has scheduled expedited argument for when it returns from its summer recess the first week of October.

In Trinity Lutheran, Supreme Court Upholds Religious Nondiscrimination

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Trinity Lutheran Church can’t be denied a state playground refurbishment subsidy simply because it’s a religious institution.

As I predicted after argument, the Court saw this as an easy case whereby the government improperly denied a public benefit because of religious status. This doesn’t mean that taxpayer funds can now be used to fund religious instruction or any other parade of horribles that was raised by Trinity Lutheran’s opponents.

Simply put, people and entities can’t be restricted from a government program simply because they’re religious. This is no different than the situation where police or fire protection is provided to houses of worship and other religious institutions.

It’s telling that Chief Justice Roberts’s attempt, via a curious footnote 3, to narrow the scope of his ruling to the facts of this case (to playgrounds?) didn’t command a majority. Justice Breyer only concurs in the judgment—he’s a pragmatist anyway—while Justices Thomas and Gorsuch specifically disclaim the disputed language. Meanwhile, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, seems to think that the ruling dissolves the separation of church and state altogether, footnote or no footnote.

Finally, I should note that the case doesn’t touch issues of taxpayer standing to challenge government grants or exemptions for businesses from generally applicable laws. (On the latter, stay tuned next term when the Court takes up the Masterpiece Cakeshop wedding-vendor case where a bakery declined on religious and free-speech grounds to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony.)

Say It With Frosting: Supreme Court Will Hear Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

As our Policy Report noted last year, Cato is the only organization in the country that has gone to court to defend both one’s right to marry a person of the same sex and one’s right as a businessperson to join or not join as one chooses in assisting in celebrating a same-sex wedding. We’ll be hearing a lot more about that second issue over the coming year, because this morning the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case presents the issue “whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.”

Cato scholars and commentators have written about this set of issues for years, including, to name a few, David Boaz (“The solution to injustice is never to reverse the injustice”), Roger Pilon (history of free association and public accommodations laws), Ilya Shapiro (“private individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how—on religious or any other grounds”), Robert Levy (“Forcing private parties to serve gay weddings is a higher order of coercion than forcing private hotels and restaurants to provide rooms and food to black—or gay—travelers”), Jason Kuznicki (“The market doesn’t care, and that’s a wonderful thing”), Emily Ekins on the polling data on a divided public, and David Lampo (different legal issues at stake than in same-sex marriage cases). Cato filed an amicus brief in the parallel (alas unsuccessful) Arlene’s Flowers case involving Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman. I’ve written about the cake and flowers cases many times at Overlawyered (as well as about other vendor cases involving meeting halls and so forth), and have delved into the collateral damage to civil liberties seen in enforcement actions like that of Oregon in the Melissa and Aaron Klein (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) case. 

Pages