This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Judith L. French, on behalf of the State Petitioners, the Ohio Scholarship and Tutorial Program was enacted in 1995 in response to an unprecedented educational crisis.
According to Ms. French, petitioners argue the program differs from the Nyquist program because it lacks a nondiscrimination provision and is intended to aid private schools.
According to Robert H. Chanin, respondents contend that transferring public funds to sectarian schools violates the Establishment Clause.
State petitioners maintain that the schools receiving aid are considered public schools.
According to State petitioners, community schools do not charge tuition.
According to Respondents, respondents seek to exclude religious schools as an option under the program.
- [1] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 37
- [4] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 69
- [5] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 70
- [6] 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdf, p. 71
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice (question), according to Justice (question), according to Justice (question), he inquired about the proportion of tuition aid going to parochial schools.
According to Justice, he questioned whether the program gives undue help or endorses religious schools.
What each side argues
State Petitioners
According to Judith L. French, on behalf of the State Petitioners, ohio enacted the Scholarship and Tutorial Program in 1995.
According to Ms. French, the program lacks a nondiscrimination provision and is intended to aid private schools, distinguishing it from the Nyquist program.
According to David L. Young, petitioners cite the Nyquist case to show this program is vitally different from the scheme struck down in Nyquist.
According to State petitioners, the schools receiving aid are considered public schools.
According to State petitioners, community schools do not charge tuition.
Respondents
According to Robert H. Chanin, transferring public funds to sectarian schools violates the Establishment Clause.
According to Respondents, respondents seek to exclude religious schools as an option under the program.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice (question), according to Justice (question), according to Justice (question), he asked about the percentage of tuition aid going to parochial schools.
According to Ms. French, petitioners argued the program is different from Nyquist because it lacks a nondiscrimination provision.
According to Robert H. Chanin, respondents argued that the program violates the Establishment Clause by funneling public funds to sectarian schools.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 97cf835c7cec3db867a3-r1-69a4592a66f4d0fa.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.