Considerations for Catholic and Faith-Based Private Schools When Participating in Various School Choice Programs

By Rachana Chhin¹

Updated August 6^th, 2026

Executive Summary:

• Catholic Social Teaching affirms that parents are the primary and principal educators of their children and therefore must be free to determine the best educational environment for their children.

• Among other educational options, Catholic and faith-based private schools have the potential to play a collaborative role with parents in educating children.

• Expanding school choice options across the board would bolster the ability to receive a quality education. Nevertheless, where resources are limited, states should prioritize the poor and children with special needs or disabilities in order to respect the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.  

• U.S. Supreme Court case precedents affirm and recognize the rights of parents and religious institutions in providing education.  

• In recent years, various school choice programs have proliferated as state legislatures and the federal government experiment with and innovate in school choice programming.  

• Various types of school choice programs now exist, including Education Savings Accounts, School Vouchers, Tax-Credit Education Savings Accounts, Tax-Credit Scholarships, and Individual Tax Credits and Deductions.

Key Takeaways:  

• In order to safeguard religious liberty and institutional autonomy, Catholic and other faith-based private schools should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of participating in various programs by consulting with legal counsel.  

• Likewise, Catholic families, dioceses, schools, and educators should also coordinate with their state Catholic conference, other school choice advocacy groups, and favorable policymakers to, as appropriate, cure any statutory deficiencies, bolster existing programs, or establish new programs that will ultimately expand education options for children and families in their state.  

I. Introduction

As leaders or supporters of faith-based private schools, it is imperative that you prepare your institutions to operate optimally in a rapidly changing educational environment. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a seismic shift in the American public’s understanding of the prevailing education system and current deficiencies with a “one-size-fits-all” model. Despite years of consolidations, closures, and declining enrollment,² battles over critical race theory, gender ideology, remote learning, and other policies were among the factors that pushed many families to reconsider nonpublic schools as a viable option for their family, including Catholic and other faith-based schools.³ In fact, Catholic schools in many (arch)dioceses saw the largest enrollment jump in decades after the pandemic.⁴ In this context, it is important for church leaders to undertake a review of the state school choice programs before them, if any, or support the creation of new programs where they are lacking, in order to make educational choice accessible to more families.  

Therefore, the goal of this paper is to provide: (1) a cursory overview of the Catholic Social Teaching basis for supporting school choice, (2) a summary of the legal landscape affecting school choice in the United States, (3) a summary of various types of school choice-programs and their advantages and disadvantages, and (4) considerations for how to advocate for or improve school choice laws in their respective states.  

II. Catholic Social Teaching and Education

For Catholics, education is not merely concerned with the transmission of technical knowledge and discrete facts, important as that may be. Instead, an “integral” Catholic vision of education is oriented towards seeking truth and forming mind, body, and spirit.⁵ In the words of the Second Vatican Council Fathers, “a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share.”⁶

To accomplish this lofty goal, Catholic Social Teaching recognizes the “primary and principal” responsibilities of parents as the first educators of their children.⁷ The parents’ role is “essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.”⁸  

Where the exercise of that primary right is limited or not able to be fully realized, it is up to the civil and ecclesial authorities to collaborate in the task of providing education according to their competencies.⁹  Correspondingly, the Church teaches that it is the responsibility of civil authorities to ensure that parents “enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools” and are supported in such a way that they are “truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children.”¹⁰  

During the first year of his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV recently reaffirmed the cooperative role between parents, the Church, and the state in education:

The family remains the first place of education. Catholic schools collaborate with parents; they do not substitute them, because the “duty … devolves primarily on them.” The educational alliance requires intentionality, listening and co-responsibility. It is built with processes, tools, shared assessments. It is both hard work and a blessing: when it works, it inspires trust; when it fails, everything becomes more fragile.¹¹

Furthermore, the Holy Father recognized the “great importance [of] the principle of subsidiarity and the fact that circumstances vary according to different local ecclesial contexts” and the Council’s articulation of “the right to education and its founding principles as universally valid,” as well as the responsibilities placed on both parents and the state in this context.¹²  

Taking from this broader tradition, the U.S. Catholic bishops have affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to choose the education best suited to the needs of their children (e.g., public, private, and religious schools) and that all persons have a right to receive a quality education:  

“Government, through such means as tax credits and publicly funded scholarships, should help provide resources for parents, especially those of modest means, to exercise this basic right without discrimination. Students in all educational settings should have opportunities for moral and character formation consistent with the beliefs and responsibilities of their parents.”¹³  

In such programs, the Catholic Social Teaching principle of the preferential option for the poor¹⁴ also promotes showing special solicitude for “improving education…especially for those most at risk,” including through “scholarships, tax credits, and other means, to educate all persons no matter what their personal condition or what school they attend—public, private, or religious.”¹⁵

Thus, in light of Church teaching supporting educational choice, Catholic schools hold a prominent place among the various educational options families should consider. Implemented in its fullest sense, with its foundation in Christ, a Catholic school “leads its students to promote efficaciously the good of the earthly city and also prepares them for service in the spread of the Kingdom of God, so that by leading an exemplary apostolic life they become, as it were, a saving leaven in the human community.”¹⁶ Therefore, the Church states that Catholic parents have a “duty” to entrust their children to a Catholic school “wherever and whenever it is possible” and of “supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children.”¹⁷ Likewise, “the whole Christian community and particularly the diocesan Ordinary [i.e., Bishop], bear the responsibility ‘of arranging everything so that all the faithful have a Catholic education’ and, more precisely, of having ‘schools which offer an education imbued with a Christian spirit.’”¹⁸

III. Legal Landscape In Brief

While the Catholic Church and other faith communities have educated children for centuries, the development of viable school choice for most American families has been gradual. Foundational United States Supreme Court precedents in the 20th century formally affirmed parents' legal right to educate their children as they see fit, including in private religious schools.  

First, in Meyers v. Nebraska (1923), the Court declared “[w]ithout doubt” that the liberty interest contained in the Fourteenth Amendment “denotes . . . the right of the individual to . . . marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”¹⁹  

Later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court found unconstitutional an Oregon compulsory public education law that required children to attend public school only, prohibiting them from attending private or religious schools, and stated: “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”²⁰  

Another important case recognizing parental rights is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). Under the law, Amish parents were prohibited from withdrawing their children from public education after 8^th grade to educate them in the Amish way of life. The Court recognized that this case involved “the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children.”²¹ Therefore, the Court said: “We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests.”²²

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025).²³ In that case, a group of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents challenged a Maryland school board policy that mandated their elementary-age children participate in a so-called “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks curriculum.  

Reaffirming Yoder and rejecting the claim it was sui generis, the Court ultimately held that the Board’s introduction of such books, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt-outs, substantially interfered with parents’ First Amendment rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.  

In the school choice context, the Supreme Court upheld nascent laws that provided subsidies or other support to families and/or private schools in the mid-20^th century, such as the state programs found in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP²⁴ and Board of Education v. Allen.²⁵ In subsequent decades, other types of programs began to gain traction, such as state tax credit or deduction programs (Mueller et al. v. Allen²⁶ and Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn²⁷) and voucher programs (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris²⁸) to support educational options for families.  

In addition to parental rights, the Court has also repeatedly affirmed the rights of religious people and institutions to receive public benefits without being forced to abandon their religious character or exercise.”²⁹ Of particular importance to faith-based schools are cases reaffirming the rights of religious institutions to participate in generally available state aid programs. First, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, the Court held a state policy that restricted faith-based institutions from participating in a playground-resurfacing program solely on account of their religious identity was unconstitutional because it imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion.³⁰ Second, the Court held in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that a state is not obligated to fund a scholarship program, but once it does so, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”³¹ There, the Court refused to enforce a state law “no-aid” provision (i.e., a Blaine Amendment) that excluded religious schools from a tax-credit scholarship program. Finally, in Carson v. Makin, the Court held that excluding faith-based schools from a Maine tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.³²

The important legal distinction between the Espinoza case and the Carson case is that the Supreme Court said the prohibition on “status-based discrimination” under the Free Exercise Clause in Espinoza was not permission for states to engage in “use-based discrimination” (i.e., discrimination on religious identity of recipient vs. religious uses of funding). In other words, “regardless of how [a] benefit and restriction are described, [if a] program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise,”³³ it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

While the cases previously mentioned do not constitute an exhaustive list, they are among the most important cases shedding light on the contours of parental rights in education and the constitutional rights of religious entities to operate private schools and participate in generally available public benefit programs.  

IV. School Choice Programs

In recent years, various school choice programs have proliferated as state legislatures experiment and innovate in school choice options.³⁴ Some states even have multiple types of school choice programs. State laws and regulations will vary with respect to implementation, approved expense types, eligibility tests, participation numbers, funding amounts, and other provisions. To safeguard religious liberty and institutional autonomy, leaders of faith-based private schools should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of participating in various programs before doing so and consult with local counsel on the available options, if any. Enumerated below are a few of the most prominent school choice program types:  

• Education Savings Accounts (ESAs)

• Education Savings Accounts provide funding to parents for approved education-related expenses of eligible children admitted to the program. Public funds are deposited in government-authorized accounts that allow parents to spend the funds on a variety of expenses. Eligible expenditures in specific programs vary but can include tuition, textbooks and other instructional materials, tutoring, online education programs, or therapies for students with special needs.  

• An advantage of an ESA-type model is that it provides flexibility and customizability for families in the education services their child can attain. However, some ESA programs “also require that students attend public school for at least part of the previous school year to be eligible for initial enrollment in the program”³⁵ or other eligibility restrictions that may limit the students who can participate, as well as financial reporting and auditing requirements³⁶ that must be considered for recipients or managers of ESA funds.  

• Currently, eighteen states have some form of ESA program: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.³⁷    

• School Vouchers

• School vouchers give educational choices to families by providing tuition aid for covered students to attend participating public or private schools. Typically, funds expended by a school district or funds otherwise set aside for a child’s education would be allocated to a family, who then could pay for a child’s education. This model generally covers partial or full tuition costs but may not be as flexible as an ESA-type model in the range of covered educational expenses.  

• Currently, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and thirteen states have some form of voucher program: Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.³⁸  

• Tax-Credit Education Savings Accounts

• Tax-credit ESAs are a relatively new form of school choice³⁹ and are available in four states: Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Utah.⁴⁰ Under a tax-credit ESA, parents use money donated to certain account-granting or educational assistance organizations to pay for tuition or other qualified educational expenses. This type of program has similar flexibility benefits to the ESA (above). Additionally, it can spur individuals or businesses to support school choice by providing tax credits for their donations.⁴¹ Nevertheless, this hybrid model has been implemented only in a limited way and has also been the subject of litigation. For example, a Kentucky program was challenged in a case related to the particular locales the tax-credit ESA targets and the necessity of local voting to accept or reject the program.⁴²  

• Tax-Credit Scholarships

• A tax-credit scholarship is funded by donors who receive a tax credit for donating to scholarship-granting non-profits or educational assistance organizations. These organizations, in turn, provide scholarships for qualified children to participate in school choice programs. Depending upon the program, donors are eligible for a credit on their state taxes ranging from partial to full credits per dollar donated. An advantage of tax credit scholarships is creation of tax credit incentives for persons or businesses who want to explicitly support school choice programs in their state. However, there are limitations on this type of program, including the amount or cap of the credit, which is limited by donations; whether eligible taxpayers can carry the credit forward year to year; and the permissible entities eligible for such credits (e.g., businesses and/or individuals).  

• In addition to state-level tax-credit scholarship programs, the federal government recently established a federal tax credit scholarship program effective January 1, 2027. This program, contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill, enacted July 2025, provides 100% federal income tax credit for cash contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs), rather than a standard charitable deduction.⁴³ This provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability, up to a certain dollar amount.

• Tax-credit scholarship programs currently exist at the state level in seventeen states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia.⁴⁴  

• With respect to the federal scholarship tax credit program, as of June 8, 2026, 27 states have elected to participate, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.⁴⁵

• Individual Tax Credits & Deductions

• While the mechanisms of this school choice benefit vary, they generally provide families with some type of state income tax credit or a deduction on taxes owed for approved educational expenses. The advantage of this program is that it provides a credit or deduction that reduces overall tax liability, but the disadvantage is that the impact may not be immediate until families file their state/local taxes, and these types of programs may not offset the full cost of educational expenses.  

• Currently, seven states offer some form of individual tax credit or deduction: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.⁴⁶  

• Other notable school choice options: Quasi-public charter schools, magnet schools, inter/intra-district public school choice, homeschooling, online learning, customized learning, town tuitioning,⁴⁷ micro-schooling, and hybrid homeschooling are other notable school choice options that promote parental choice. However, they vary in implementation and are distinct from the traditional Catholic school model. Therefore, Catholic or other faith-based schools should consult local counsel if they want to learn more about, participate in, or incorporate any elements of these alternative models.  

V. Considerations for Catholic Schools Participating in School Choice Programs

While there are many types of private schools, faith-based private schools face unique challenges due to their dual religious and educational nature. Thus, these types of schools should refer to their legal counsel before advocating for, participating in, or accepting students in a school choice program. For Catholic schools, this process should include collaborating with their local bishops’ conference or (arch)diocesan legislative liaison and other local school choice advocacy groups. Since legislative sessions vary in process, these bodies can provide technical expertise.⁴⁸  This can also ensure that any advocacy efforts are coordinated and that multiple stakeholders are on board to support the most optimal school choice programs for your state. Whether you are seeking to implement a new choice program or amend a pre-existing one, there are important questions to consider:  

• What additional regulatory burdens will this school choice program impose on your faith-based private school?  

• While the levels of regulations vary with each type of school choice program, faith-based private schools should scrutinize what regulations they will be subject to should they either choose to participate in or accept students through school choice programs. This can ensure that school superintendents, principals, staff, and other relevant administrators can develop and implement policies and processes to ensure compliance with the relevant ecclesial and governmental bodies.  

• What entity will monitor your school’s compliance with the program?  

• Each school choice program will set out its own requirements regarding compliance. While robust public monitoring mechanisms can ensure efficient and judicious expenditure of state resources, this may also impose additional reporting, auditing, and monitoring requirements, as well as sanctions for non-compliance, that a faith-based private school should be aware of before participating in or accepting students through such programs.

• Does this program prohibit families from choosing religious schools for their children? If so, in what way could that statute or regulation be amended?  

• Even after the Espinoza decision that affected Blaine Amendments (above), some states’ laws may still contain prohibitions on private religious schools from participating in school choice programs, such as Maine,⁴⁹ New Hampshire,⁵⁰ and Vermont⁵¹ school choice/town tuitioning programs. Those restrictions are likely unenforceable now. For example, the Vermont Agency of Education conceded that Carson renders its “compelled support provision” unconstitutional.⁵² Nevertheless, where possible, policymakers in your state may consider explicitly removing or amending any provisions limiting participation by faith-based schools.  

• What standardized or norm-referenced testing, if any, will faith-based private schools have to implement if they choose to participate in the program?

• Some school choice programs, such as the Louisiana,⁵³ Tennessee⁵⁴ and Wisconsin⁵⁵ school choice programs, require participating schools to administer the state’s standardized test. While this may be a suitable option for many faith-based private schools, others may opt for greater flexibility by allowing for other nationally norm-referenced tests or assessments in lieu of state testing. Consultation with your local bishops’ conference, other ecclesial authority, or legal counsel is warranted here.  

• Will participation in this program affect the ability of faith-based private schools to set or determine admissions criteria?  

• Some school choice programs, such as the Washington, D.C.,⁵⁶ Louisiana,⁵⁷ Maryland,⁵⁸ and various Wisconsin school choice programs,⁵⁹ may limit the ability of private schools or private religious schools to set their own admissions standards. Where possible, school choice programs should be implemented in such a way and/or amended to protect the freedoms of faith-based private schools to set their own admissions criteria in order to best serve children and families who would benefit from the religious education provided by their school(s).⁶⁰  

• Would this program require faith-based private schools to apply certain non-discrimination provisions? Are there any exceptions for religious entities?  

• Certain programs, such as the Maryland school choice program,⁶¹ include compliance with non-discrimination provisions in their statutes, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the existence of provisions guaranteeing religious liberty protections for schools, there have been cases where a school expelled from the program was forced to litigate to protect their rights.⁶² Faith-based private schools should consult with counsel on the availability and applicability of federal religious liberty protections, state constitutional protections, or state legislative provisions such as a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  

• Is this school choice program tailored for, or does it give admission preference to, students with disabilities? Is your school equipped to provide those services?  

• Some state school choice programs are tailored for or provide additional funding to students with disabilities or special needs, including programs in Arizona,⁶³ Florida,⁶⁴ Tennessee,⁶⁵ Arkansas,⁶⁶ Ohio,⁶⁷ Utah,⁶⁸ and South Carolina.⁶⁹ Such programs are an important school choice option for families whose children may not be a good fit for a traditional public school. Nevertheless, faith-based private school advocates should conduct a thorough assessment of the services, therapies, and other educational resources their school provides to serve these students and families before committing to a particular school choice program primarily tailored for students with disabilities or other special needs.  

• Is the funding provided in the school choice program capped at a fixed amount, or does it account for inflation and/or other costs?  

• Many school choice programs cap the amount of funds that are given to children and families to be used on tuition and other educational services in a voucher program or the amount of a tax credit/deduction in a tax credit scholarship program. Additionally, the percentage of money allocated to school choice programs is often only a fraction of that allocated to K-12 public education. Therefore, school choice dollars may not necessarily offset all costs associated with the admission of students into your school. School choice programs can ameliorate this by adjusting the funding or credits available in a program via an “escalator” mechanism or as otherwise needed to meet demand (example provisions can be found in Montana or Florida’s school choice programs).⁷⁰ In conjunction with seeking legal counsel, faith-based private schools should also consult with development and finance personnel to ensure the operational sustainability of their schools.  

• Is the program funded by appropriations (relying on the legislature each session to provide the money), or does it rely on some other mechanism?

• This is related to the question above. For school choice programs that rely on legislative appropriations, requiring that they be funded via line-item appropriations each session subjects them to the shifting circumstances of the legislative process. Though this process will vary state by state, aligning your school choice program with pre-existing education funding formulas or an equivalent mechanism may also provide greater stability and predictability for children and families.  

• Can funds be rolled over or otherwise used for future educational expenses?  

• Allowing funds to be rolled over could incentivize further educational attainment and promote the efficiency in utilization of school choice programs. For example, Arizona’s ESA program allows parents to rollover unused money for eligible postsecondary institutions up to four years post-high school.⁷¹ In Nevada, taxpayers can also carry forward tax credits for five years for certain qualified contributions to education funds.⁷² Including some type of rollover or carry-forward provision could provide greater flexibility to families to allocate for their child’s education and incentivize participation.  

• Does the program have any state residency requirements, prior public school enrollment requirements, or geographic restrictions that would affect the eligibility of children and families or your school?  

• Apart from special needs, other school choice programs typically have provisions related to residency requirements,⁷³ prior public-school enrollment,⁷⁴ or geography limitations.⁷⁵ If the student is enrolling or is enrolled in a school that exclusively serves students experiencing homelessness,⁷⁶ that may also affect education choice. Where possible, school choice programs should expand eligibility to as many students as possible (taking into account the legitimate preference for the poor and vulnerable) to make school choice accessible to as many families as possible. However, if necessary, including provisions on household income limits may tailor your school choice program to the families who need it most.  

Conclusion

This is a momentous opportunity for our nation to advance school choice. These questions are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Furthermore, not all these questions will be relevant to your school, and there is not necessarily one right answer or “best” option. Nevertheless, these questions should provide a starting point to understand how a particular school choice program would affect your operations, institutional autonomy, and religious liberty. Catholic schools are uniquely situated based on the Church’s support for parental rights and their longstanding experience in providing education. In working to create and/or improve existing school choice programs, Catholics and other faith communities can ensure that quality education remains attainable for children for generations to come.  

* Rachana Chhin serves as Legal Counsel, UN, for ADF International in New York, NY. In that role, he advocates on issues related to life, family, religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights. He attained a B.A. in International Studies from Baylor University, a J.D. and M.A. in Catholic Studies from the University of St. Thomas (MN), and an LL.M. in International Human Rights Law from Notre Dame Law School. The views and opinions in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of his employer.

^[1] United States Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools 2021-2022: The Annual Statistical Report on Schools, Enrollment, and Staffing, Nat’l. Cath. Educ. Assoc.(Mar. 2022), available at https://www.ncea.org/NCEA/Who_We_Are/About_Catholic_Schools/Catholic_School_Data/NCEA/Who_We_Are/About_Catholic_Schools/Catholic_School_Data/Catholic_School_Data.aspx?hkey=8e90e6aa-b9c4-456b-a488-6397f3640f05.

^[2] America’s Catholic schools are seeing a surprising rise in enrollment, The Economist (Nov. 20, 2021),available at https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/11/20/americas-catholic-schools-are-seeing-a-surprising-rise-in-enrolment.

^[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2467; Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church(CSDC), 238-243.

^[4] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,  Declaration of Pope Paul VI on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis (GE) (Oct. 28,1965) at 1, available at https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html.

^[5] Id. at 3.

^[6] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (Nov. 22, 1981) at 36,available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html.

^[7] CSDC, 240.

^[8] GE, 6.

[9] Pope Leo XIV, Apostolic Letter “Drawing New Maps of Hope” on the occasion of the 60^th Anniversary of the Conciliar Declaration Gravissimum educationis Vatican.va (Oct. 27, 2025)at 5.3, available at https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/apost_letters/documents/20251027-disegnare-nuove-mappe.html.

[10] Id. at 6.1.

^[11] United States Conference ofCatholic Bishops, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (UpdatedNovember 2023) at 82, available at https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf.

^[12] See CCC, 2443-2449.

^[13] Forming Consciences forFaithful Citizenship, 83.

^[14] GE, supra note 5,at 8.

^[15] Id.

^[16] Congregation for CatholicEducation, Educating to Intercultural Dialogue in Catholic Schools: Livingin harmony for a Civilization of Love (Oct. 28, 2013), 86, available at https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20131028_dialogo-interculturale_en.html (citing 794 § 2 & 802 Code ofCanon Law).

^[17] 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

^[18] 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

[19] 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972).

^[20] Id. at 215.

[21] 606 U. S. 522 (2025).

^[22] 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (upholding a New Jersey statute that reimbursed parents for money expended for the transportation of children to school, including to Catholic parochial schools).

^[23] 392 U.S. 236 (1968) (upholding a New York state law requiring public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades 7 to 12, including those in private religious schools).

^[24] 463 U.S. 388 (1983) (upholding a Minnesota law that permits taxpayers to claim a deduction of gross income for certain expenses incurred in educating their children, including at “sectarian” institutions).

^[25] 536 U.S. 125 (2011) (holding that certain taxpayers did not have standing to sue and thereby allowing an Arizona school tax credit law to remain in effect).

^[26] 536 U.S. 639 (2002) (holding that an Ohio pilot voucher scholarship program did not offend the Establishment Clause because, among other reasons, it was neutral with respect to religion and aid only reached religious schools as result of the genuine and independent private choice of parents).

^[27] See e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374U.S. 398 (1963) (holding that South Carolina may not constitutionally apply the eligibility provisions for unemployment compensation so as to constrain a worker to abandon his religious convictions to work on the Sabbath).

^[28] 582 U.S. 449 (2017).

^[29] 591 U.S. 464, 487 (2020).

^[30] 596 U.S. 767 (2022).

[31] Id. At 782.

^[32] Sections IV and V of this White Paper extensively reference EdChoice’s 2026 report, entitled “The ABCs of School Choice: The comprehensive guide to every private school choice program in America.” EdChoice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to understanding and pursuing a K–12 education system that empowers every family to choose the schooling environment that fits their children’s needs best. That guide is available here: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/The-ABCs-of-School-Choice-2026-WEB.pdf (last visited July 10^th,2026).

[33] Education Choice State Policy Scan: Education Savings Accounts, National Conference of State Legislatures (updated July 21,2025), available at https://www.ncsl.org/education/education-choice-state-policy-scan-education-savings-accounts.

[34] See e.g., EducationScholarship Accounts Frequently Asked Questions, ExcelinEd (2024),available at https://excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024_ESA_OnePager_FAQ.pdf.

[35] EdChoice ABCs of School Choice, supra note 33, at 15.

[36] Id. at 19.

[37] School Choice Facts & Statistics, EdChoice (last visitedAugust 6, 2026), available at https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/fast-facts/.

[38] EdChoice ABCs of School Choice, supra note 33 at 17.

[39] See generally Tax-Credit Education Savings Accounts (ESAs),EdChoice (last visited August 6, 2026), available at https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/tax-credit-esa/.

^[40] Council for Better Educationv. Johnson and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Franklin Circuit Court, Div.1, Civil Action No. 21-CI-00461 (2021), available at https://pfps.org/assets/uploads/CBE_v._Johnson_-_Opinion_and_Order__Partial_SJ_Plaintiffs_.pdf.

[41] Corrine Vidales, “Is aSchool Choice Revolution Coming?” Napa Legal Institute (March 10, 2026),available at https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/post/is-a-school-choice-revolution-coming.

[42] EdChoice, supra note 33, at 21.

[43] IRS News Release: “More than half the U.S. States signed up toparticipate in the federal scholarship tax credit program enacted under theOne, Big, Beautiful Bill” I.R.S. (June 8, 2026), available at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/more-than-half-the-us-states-signed-up-to-participate-in-the-federal-scholarship-tax-credit-program-enacted-under-the-one-big-beautiful-bill.

[44] EdChoice, supra note 33, at 25.

[45] Enacted in 1873 in Maine, Town Tuitioning programs fund school choiceby allowing so-called “sending towns” to pay tuition directly to “receiving”schools. Students must live in Maine and reside in a designated sending townthat does not have a public school at their grade level. Public schools thatreceive participating students set their tuition rate and are paid by thesending town. Id. at 56.

^[46] A state Catholicconference is a church agency representing the dioceses and eparchies within astate in order to provide for the coordination of the public policy concerns ofthe church. State Catholic Conferences communicate with state governments, otherchurch agencies, non-Catholic churches, and secular agencies. Bishops, priests,religious, and lay persons are involved in the work of the conferences. A listof various episcopal conferences can be found at this link: https://www.nasccd.org/?page_id=62 (last visited July 10th, 2026).

^[47] See supra note 33; Maine Rev. Stat. 20-A § 2951(2) (nonsectariantuition purposes) and § 5203-05 (program).

^[48] N.H. Rev. Stat. § 193:3 VI-VII(b) (mustbe a “nonsectarian” school).  

^[49] 16 V.S.A. §§ 821-36 (town tuitioningprogram); Chittenden Town School Dist. v. Dept. of Education, 738 A.2d539 (Vt.), cert.denied, 528 U.S. 1066 (1999) (concluding that a school districtviolates the Vermont Constitution’s “compelled support” provision (i.e.,distinguished from a Blaine Amendment which is a “no-aid” provision) when itreimburses “sectarian schools” under a tuition-reimbursement policy in absenceof safeguards against use of funds for religious worship).

[50] Letter from Emily Simmons, Vt. Agency of Educ., to Superintendents, TuitionPayment to Religiously-Affiliated Approved Independent Schools (Jan. 11,2023), available at https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2024/WorkGroups/House%20Education/Education%20Funding/Carson%20v.%20Makin/W~Emily%20Simmons~Letter%20to%20Superintendents-%20Tuition%20Payment%20to%20Religiously-Affiliated%20Approved%20Independent%20Schools%20-%20AOE~1-11-2023.pdf.

^[51] La. Rev. Stat. §47:6301(B)(2)(a)(ii) (requires annually administration of “either any examination in English Language Arts and mathematics required pursuant to the school and district accountability system at the prescribed grade level or a nationallynorm-referenced test or assessment approved by the state board.”).

^[52] Tenn.Code Ann. § § 49-6-2606 (requires annual administration of the “TCAP” tests for math and English).

^[53] Wis. Stat. § 118.60(7)(e) (requires each private school in the program to administer state examinations).  

^[54] DC ST § § 38–1853.08(requires participating schools to apply nondiscrimination provisions. Limitedsex discrimination exception for participating schools “operated by, supervisedby, controlled by, or connected to a religious organization” to the extent thatapplication is “inconsistent with the religious tenets or beliefs of theschool.”).

^[55] La. Rev. Stat. §47:6301(B)(2)(a)(iii) (requires a qualified school to utilize a randomselection process if more students apply than there are seats available).

^[56] MD Senate Bill 290/House Bill 300 § R00A03.05 (requires nonpublic schools in their “BOOST” voucher program to agree to not discriminate in student admissions, retention, or expulsion “on the basis of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”).

^[57] See, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 119.23(3)(a)(allows a private school to reject an applicant if they have reached maximum capacity and requires them to accept students on a random basis, with limited preferences for previous pupils and siblings, as well as students who attended a different private school during the previous year) (Milwaukee), §118.60(3)(a) (Racine)(same as above).

^[58] However, any private schools whoare the recipients of federal funds should consult with legal counsel to ensurethey do not run afoul of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financialassistance, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§1681–1688), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. However, Title IXwould not apply to a private religious school to the extent that itsapplication would be inconsistent with the controlling organization’s religious tenets. 34 C.F.R. § 106.12. See also Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) (holding that the denial of tax exemptions to a school that discriminated on the basis of race does not violate the First Amendment). Cf. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)(upholding First Amendment right of “expressive association” by private organizations despite the existence of certain nondiscrimination provisions).

[59] Supra note 57.

^[60] Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, Civil Case No.: SAG-19-1853 (D. Md. 2021), available at https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Bethel-Ministries-v-Salmon-Opinion-Summary-Judgment-2021-12-10.pdf.

^[61] Ariz.Rev. Stat. §§ 15-2401(7) (qualified students include children who have been identified by a school district or an independent third party as a child with a disability or who have a disability under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794)); Ariz.Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1089; 43-1601(4)(defines qualifying disabilities for income tax credit scholarship).

^[62] Fla. Stat. §1002.385(2)(d) (listing various disabilities that would allow a child to qualify for an ESA).

^[63] Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-10-1402(3)(A)(i-x)(listing various disabilities that qualify under their Individual EducationAccount Program.). This is a special type of ESA dedicated to children withspecial needs. See Tennessee Individualized Education Account Program, EdChoice(last visited Aug. 6, 2026), available at https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/individualized-education-account-program/.

^[64] Ark.Code Ann. §§ 6-41-901(a)(3)(A)(i)(1)(a) (allows students withdisabilities to participate in Arkansas’s Succeed Scholarship Program who have adisability identified under the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., as it existed on January 1, 2023).

^[65] OhioRev. Code §§ 3310.51 through 64 (allows an alternative public provideror registered private provider to enroll a child in a special education programto implement the child’s IEP under the Jon Peterson special needs scholarshipprogram).

^[66] Utah Code §§ 53F-4-302(2)(b)(i-xii)(listing the disabilities that are eligible for coverage under the Carson SmithScholarship voucher program).

^[67] S.C. Code Ann. § 12-6-3790(A)(2) (defines“exceptional needs child” eligible to participate in their tax creditscholarship program).

^[68] Mont.Code Ann. § 15-30-3111(4)(a)(ii) (allows for the aggregate limit of tax credits to be increased by 20% if 80% in tax credits were preapproved under previously set limits); Fla. Stat.§ 1002.395(5)(a)(2) (allows for the tax credit cap to automatically increase by25% if the annual tax credit amount from the prior year was equal to or greater than 90% of the tax credit cap).

^[69] Ariz. Rev.Stat. §§ 15-2401(K) (governing ESA closure, including on the qualified student’s graduation from a post secondary institution or “after any period of four consecutive years after high school graduation in which the student is not enrolled in an eligible postsecondary institution.”).

^[70] NRS 363A.139(7).

^[71] See e.g., N.H. Rev. Stat. § 194-F:1 (VI),(XIII)(d) (residency and certain household income threshold to determine priority, respectively); DC ST § 38–1853.13 (4) (eligible student defined to mean D.C. resident that comes from household with certain income thresholds); Fla. Stat. § 1002.40(2)(h) (defines “parent” to mean “a resident of this state who is a parent”).

^[72] See e.g., Va. Code § 58.1-439.25 (residency plus prior public-school enrollment for one-half year); O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2114 (one year requirement, exception for children of a service member, student who has been adopted or placed in permanent guardianship from foster care).

^[73] See e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 17:4031(B)(1) (eligibility for those residing in parishes with more than 190,000 residents according to the most recent federal census); Mo. Rev.Stat. §§ 166.700(8-9) (defines “qualified student” as, inter alia, any elementary or secondary school student who is a “resident” of the state who is not an “illegal alien” and “qualified school” as a charter, private, public, or public or private virtual school “incorporated in Missouri”).

[74] Okla. Stat. tit. 70 § 13-101.2(B)(1)(f) (“The parent or legal guardian of a student with a special need may exercise his or her parental option and request to have a Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship awarded for the child to enroll in and attend a private school in accordance with this section and the scholarship shall be awarded if: […] the student is enrolling or is enrolled in a school that exclusively serves students experiencing homelessness.”).

Legal Disclaimer: This white paper contains general educational information related to legal concepts, but this information does not constitute legal advice. Anyone seeking legal advice is strongly encouraged to consult with a licensed attorney regarding any of the matters discussed herein. Although licensed attorneys work with NLI, NLI is not a law firm and does not undertake legal representation on behalf of any clients. Further, no licensed attorney working with or on behalf of NLI agrees to undertake legal representation on behalf of any client unless the terms of such representation are set forth in a separate, written representation agreement. The views and opinions in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of his employer.

‍