About: Carson v. Makin     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCarson_v._Makin&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Carson v. Makin (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • David Carson, as Parent and Next Friend of O. C., et al. v. A. Pender Makin, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
Dissent
  • Sotomayor (en)
  • Breyer (en)
docket
JoinDissent
  • Kagan; Sotomayor (en)
JoinMajority
  • Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett (en)
LawsApplied
OralArgument
oyez
USPage
  • ___ (en)
USVol
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
  • Carson v. Makin, (en)
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
  • David Carson, as Parent and Next Friend of O. C., et al. v. A. Pender Makin, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education (en)
Holding
  • Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for the otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause. (en)
justia
Litigants
  • Carson v. Makin (en)
majority
  • Roberts (en)
other source
  • Supreme Court (en)
other url
has abstract
  • Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The case centered on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the vouchers to be used to pay for religious-based private schools. In a 6–3 decision the Court ruled that Maine's restrictions on vouchers violated the Free Exercise Clause, as they discriminated against religious-backed private schools. The minority opinions argued that the decision worked against the long-standing principle of the separation of church and state, since state governments would now be required to fund religious institutions. (en)
Opinion
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 43 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software