Gale Garriot, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 May 2010

Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 43-1089, individuals who contribute money to school tuition organizations (STOs) that provide scholarships to students wishing to attend private schools are entitled to an income tax credit. Respondents alleged that Section 1089's neutral language and the Legislature's stated secular purpose for enacting it were a pretense and that the tuition tax credit program had the primary effect of advancing religion because a majority of taxpayers who contributed to STOs chose to contribute to STOs that awarded scholarships to students attending religious schools. The question presented is the following: Did the court of appeals err in holding that if most taxpayers who contribute to STOs contribute to STOs that award scholarships to students attending religious schools, Section 1089 has the purpose and effect of advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause even though Section 1089 is a neutral program of private choice on its face and the State does nothing to influence the taxpayers or the STOs' choice?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge to an Arizona tax credit program that allowed taxpayers to receive state income tax credits for contributions made to school tuition organizations (STOs), which in turn provided scholarships for students attending private schools, including religious ones. The respondents argued that the program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by effectively directing public funds towards religious institutions. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Garriot, Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue, holding that because donations were made voluntarily and not directly from government coffers, there was no violation. The decision emphasized taxpayer choice and indirect aid as key factors distinguishing this situation from unconstitutional direct funding scenarios.