Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school related expenses, including expenses incurring from private sectarian and nonsectarian education. The plaintiffs claimed a Minnesota statute allowing tax deductions for public and private school expenses alike had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction because parents paying tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students who incur no tuition expenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the statute. The majority affirmed that the benefit was religiously neutral because the deduction applied to sectarian and nonsectarian tuitions equally and that the choice of religious or non-religious instruction was made by individual parents, not the state. The dissenting justices' opinion argued that the tax deduction was not permissible because it was an indirect government subsidy of religion and provided a financial incentive to parents to send their children to religious schools.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Mueller_v._Allen abstract "Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school related expenses, including expenses incurring from private sectarian and nonsectarian education. The plaintiffs claimed a Minnesota statute allowing tax deductions for public and private school expenses alike had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction because parents paying tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students who incur no tuition expenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the statute. The majority affirmed that the benefit was religiously neutral because the deduction applied to sectarian and nonsectarian tuitions equally and that the choice of religious or non-religious instruction was made by individual parents, not the state. The dissenting justices' opinion argued that the tax deduction was not permissible because it was an indirect government subsidy of religion and provided a financial incentive to parents to send their children to religious schools.".