Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C.
In 2000, recognizing that many of the policies and programs being promoted by Georgia Community Foundation could be furthered by favorable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, GCF Founder Jim Kelly and GCF Founding Board Member Frank Hanna III created Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C., a public interest civil and human rights law firm. The primary purpose of the non-profit law firm is to promote and protect religious liberty through the preparation and filing of amicus curiae ("friend-of-the-court") briefs in Supreme Court cases involving religious liberty or educational freedom. Since 2000, Solidarity Center for Law and Justice has filed four amicus curiae briefs.
In the case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether it was constitutional for the Milford Central School district in Milford, New York to deny a local chapter of the Good News Club, a Christian after-school youth group, the same access to public school classrooms for after-school programming as that which the school district was providing to secular youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts. In the amicus curiae brief filed with the Court, Solidarity Center for Law and Justice argued that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the Milford Central School district from providing exclusive after-school access to public school classrooms to secular organizations for the moral and ethical training of children. In the brief, Solidarity Center argued that the teaching of morals and ethics from a strictly secular viewpoint constituted a humanist form of religious indoctrination. Once the school district opened its classrooms for the teaching of a humanist religion, it could not discriminate against a Christian youth group that taught children morals and ethics from a purely religious viewpoint.
A copy of the amicus curiae brief filed by Solidarity Center for Law and Justice is available here.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the Court’s 2001 decision, agreed with Solidarity Center's argument. In his opinion, he explained that, "What matters for purposes of the Free Speech Clause is that we can see no logical difference in kind between the invocation of Christianity by the Club and the invocation of teamwork, loyalty, or patriotism by other associations to provide a foundation for their lessons." By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court struck down Milford Central School system’s prohibition against the after-school use of its classrooms by Christian and other religious organizations.
According to a 2006 article published in the Wall Street Journal, between 2001 and 2006, the number of after-school Good News clubs increased fivefold to 2,518 from 536.
In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court of the United States considered the constitutionality of Ohio’s school choice program that provided parents in Cleveland, Ohio with public funds to educate their children at the schools of their choice, whether public, public charter, independent, religious schools. Cleveland parents, whose children had long-suffered in failing public schools, overwhelmingly chose to use their school vouchers to enroll their children at the many Catholic parochial schools operating in Cleveland.
In its amicus curiae brief filed with the Court, Solidarity Center for Law and Justice argued that, unless Cleveland parents with limited financial resources were provided public funds that provided them with the ability to educate their children in accordance with the dictates of their consciences, they would have no choice but to enroll them in public schools that were engaged in secular character education programs.
A copy of the amicus curiae brief filed by Solidarity Center for Law and Justice is available here.
In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States decided by a 5 to 4 vote that the Ohio school choice program was constitutional. Since that time, comparable opportunity scholarship or voucher programs have been implemented in several states, including, in 2012, Louisiana and Indiana.
In Locke v. Davey (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the State of Washington was required to award state-funded Promise Scholarships to college students majoring in Pastoral Ministry degree programs on the same basis as scholarships awarded to other college students. The State of Washington had refused to offer theology majors Promise Scholarships on the basis that the Washington State Constitution contains a Blaine Amendment specifically stating that, "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction."
In its amicus curiae brief filed with the Court, Solidarity Center for Law and Justice argued that, once it offered Promise Scholarships to college students, the State of Washington could not discriminate against the religious viewpoint of those students who desired to study theology or pastoral ministry. Solidarity Center argued that, in the absence of any evidence that theology or pastoral ministry majors would be educated in a manner that posed a threat to a democratic society, it was unlawful for the State of Washington to rely on the Blaine Amendment to discriminate against these students.
A copy of the amicus curiae brief filed by Solidarity Center for Law and Justice is available here.
In 2004, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court of the United States decided it was constitutional under the State of Washington's Blaine Amendment to deny Promise Scholarships to theology or pastoral ministry majors.