Significance: In this case the Supreme Court established that the government could provide aid to an individual in a religious setting without violating the establishment clause’s prohibition against entangling church and state.
Background: James Zobrest was a hearing-impaired student attending a Catholic high school. He needed a sign-language interpreter to facilitate his education, but the Catalina Foothills local school district refused to provide him with one, arguing that to do so would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Zobrest’s parents sued the school district, claiming that the 1970 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide an interpreter. The lower courts ruled in favor of the school district, arguing that an interpreter would serve as a promoter of Zobrest’s religious development, thus violating the separation of church and state.
Decision: This case was argued on February 24, 1993, and decided on June 18, 1993, by a vote of 5 to 4. Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke for the Court, which ruled in favor of Zobrest. The Court held that the establishment clause did not actually forbid placing a public employee in a religious school. Providing an interpreter was a government benefit that was not aimed at any particular religious group; it was simply provided to the disabled individual through IDEA. Any disabled individual was entitled to take part in these programs, despite the fact that a religious institution may indirectly benefit from them. The Court also pointed out that assistance provided through IDEA gave no financial incentive for parents to choose a religious school, so the establishment clause was not violated. Justices Harry A. Blackmun, David Souter, John Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented.
Excerpt from the Opinion of the Court: “The IDEA creates a neutral government program dispensing aid not to schools, but to individual handicapped children. If a handicapped child chooses to enroll in a sectarian [religious] school, we hold that the Establishment Clause does not prevent the school district from furnishing him with a sign-language interpreter there in order to facilitate his education.”
