(NEW YORK)  — Two families from Maine asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to expand taxpayer support for religious schools by requiring a state tuition assistance program to include sectarian as well as nonsectarian institutions.

The case, which has been closely watched by school choice advocates, could significantly expand religious liberties and clear the way for broader public support for religious education. Opponents say it risks unconstitutional entanglement of church and state.

During nearly two hours of oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority of justices appeared highly receptive to the families’ claims that Maine has discriminated on the basis of religion, in violation of the First Amendment, by disqualifying schools that “promote” a specific faith and teach subjects “through the lens of their faith.”

“Religious discrimination is religious discrimination,” said attorney Michael Bindas, representing the families. “Religious schools, after all, teach religion just as a soccer team plays soccer and a book club reads books. It’s only because of religion that they are excluded.”

Maine argues that its tuition-aid program is meant to subsidize a “rough equivalent of a public education” and its criteria are religiously neutral — discriminating not on the status or affiliation of the school but what it teaches.

“Maine has determined as a matter of public policy that public education be neutral,” said Maine deputy attorney general Christopher Taub. “[The families] are not being discriminated against.”

Since nearly half of Maine public school districts do not have their own schools, many either contract with other districts to provide education to residents or they provide tuition payments — roughly $11,000 a year — for “the approved private school of the parent’s choice at which a student is accepted.”

Of the roughly 180,000 school children in Maine, only about 5,000 attend private schools using state tuition aid. The plaintiff families want to send their children to Christian schools that overtly advocate religious beliefs and were excluded from the program.

The Supreme Court has said that states cannot use tax dollars to explicitly promote religion, nor can they target a religion or discriminate based solely on religious status. The gray area in between the two rules is where this case will be decided.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested any state assessment of religious teaching in order to determine qualification for tuition aid would be inherently unconstitutional discrimination.

“We have said that that is the most basic violation of the — the First Amendment religion clauses, for the government to draw distinctions between religions based on their doctrine,” Roberts said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the “neutral position” would be for the state to not consider religion at all in determining a school’s eligibility.

“Why isn’t it treating people neutrally to tell them you’re all equal citizens without respect to your religion, and so, too, all the schools that are accredited are equal without respect to their religion, whether you are secular, Catholic, Jewish, what have you, you’re all going to be treated equally?” he asked.

The court’s three liberal justices took a more critical approach, highlighting potential “strife” among citizens who oppose their tax dollars underwriting religious indoctrination and social values with which they may strongly disagree.

“The very point is they teach all subjects through the lens of religion,” noted Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan insisted states should be allowed to make their own judgments on funding for religious schools based on local views.

“Why does the state have to exercise — have to subsidize the exercise of a right?” Kagan asked. “Essentially what Maine is saying here is like, all well and good if a locality or if a state wants to do this, but we weigh the interests differently, and shouldn’t we be allowed to weigh the interests differently.”

Bindas, arguing for the parents, insisted Maine’s approach is discrimination that cannot stand.

“This absolutely discriminates against parents. It says you can get an otherwise available public benefit you are statutorily entitled to so long as you don’t exercise a right that this Court recognized,” he said. “And this Court should not allow that to stand.”

The court is expected to hand down a decision next spring.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — In the speech she says she would have given had she won the 2016 presidential election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have challenged the country and spoken to her mother about becoming the first woman elected to the White House, according to excerpts of a video made public Wednesday.

“Fundamentally, this election challenged us to decide what it means to be an American in the 21st century and by reaching for a unity, decency, and what President Lincoln called the better angels of our nature,” Clinton said as she read from a draft of her speech, quoting a line from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address.

“We met that challenge. Today with your children on your shoulders, neighbors at your side, friends, old and new standing as one, you renewed our democracy. And because of the honor you have given me, you changed its face forever.”

Clinton is sharing the speech she never gave in a new online class being released through MasterClass, a subscription service where experts, celebrities, and politicians share video classes teaching skills. Her class, which releases on Thursday, is part of the platform’s “The White House” series where other politicians, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, are giving political insights and lessons, according to MasterClass.

Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s class and the speech were aired on NBC’s “Today” broadcast, in an interview with “Sunday Today” host Willie Geist, and online on Wednesday. Clinton told Geist that she chose to revisit the speech because “I wanted to be as helpful as I could to the viewers and to the process of being in a MasterClass.”

In the video released by MasterClass, Clinton became emotional reading a section of her speech about her mother, Dorothy Rodham, who passed away in 2011.

Dorothy Rodham overcame a challenging childhood. Her parents sent her away by train at age 8 to live with her grandparents, and Rodham was forced to find work as a maid at age 14.

Clinton, chocking up, said, “I think about my mother every day. Sometimes I think about her on that train… I wish I could walk down the aisle and find the little wooden seats where she sat holding tight to her even younger sister. Alone; terrified. She doesn’t yet know how much she will suffer. She doesn’t yet know she will find the strength to escape that suffering.”

“I dream of going up to her and sitting down next to her, taking her in my arms, and saying look at me. Listen to me. You will survive. You will have a good family of your own and three children. And as hard as it might be to imagine, your daughter will grow up and become the president of the United States,” Clinton read.

The excerpts of the drafted speech also included the vision Clinton said Americans had of “a hopeful, inclusive, big hearted America. An America where women are respected and immigrants are welcomed; where veterans are honored, parents are supported, and workers are paid fairly.

“An America where we believe in science, where we look beyond people’s disabilities and see their possibilities, where marriage is a right and discrimination is wrong… we all have a role to play in our great American story. And yes, that absolutely includes everyone who voted for other candidates or who didn’t vote at all.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.