October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1751

Does Ohio's voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?

Ohio officials defend a scholarship program. Opponents claim it funds religious schools.

Official caption: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Latest argument session: 2002-02-20
Latest official Court activity: 2002-02-20
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2002-02-20

What happened at the argument
Ms. French argued the program responded to a crisis. She cited the 1995 legislative action. She emphasized the educational need. She presented the program's neutral purpose. She highlighted student choice as the mechanism. She argued the funds follow the student. She rejected the claim of direct funding. She asserted the program serves all students. She defended the law's constitutionality.
Mr. Chanin argued the program funds religious schools. He claimed public money goes to sects. He said the funds support religious instruction. He argued religious and secular education mix. He cited the transfer of unrestricted funds. He claimed the money supports sectarian programs. He argued this violates the Establishment Clause. He sought to invalidate the voucher system.
Mr. Young addressed the distinction from prior cases. He referenced specific legal precedents. He argued the current program differs. He cited the history and context. He claimed these factors matter for the test. He argued the purpose is secular. He distinguished the program from invalid schemes. He asserted the program is neutral. He defended the law's validity.
General Olson argued history and context matter. He cited the Court's prior teachings. He said purpose is key for the test. He argued the program serves a secular goal. He emphasized the educational crisis context. He claimed the program does not endorse religion. He argued student choice drives the funding. He defended the program's constitutionality.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-17 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 5-45 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 5-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 41-43

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Ohio enacted a scholarship program in 1995. It aimed to address an educational crisis. The program provides funds to students. These students attend public or private schools. Private schools include religious institutions. Opponents argue this transfers public money to sects. They claim religious and secular education mix. The state argues the program serves a neutral purpose.