On March 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that taxpayer funds can subsidize volunteer instructors that teach in religious schools. The ruling reversed a July 2, 2004 decision by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, who admonished the government for failing to monitor programs sufficiently to ensure compliance with the law and called the line between secular and religious activities "completely blurred." The American Jewish Congress (AJC) may appeal the decision. AJC filed the suit in 2002, alleging that AmeriCorps, a network of national service programs that engage more than 50,000 Americans a year, had crossed the line between church and state by funding participants who taught religion as well as secular subjects in Catholic schools. The suit, American Jewish Congress v. Corporation for National & Community Service, claimed that three AmeriCorps grantees were using program funds to teach Christian values. The three grantees were the University of Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education, known as ACE; the Catholic Network of Volunteer Service; and the Nebraska Volunteer Service Commission. AmeriCorps receives federal funds that are given as grants to nonprofits, such as Habitat for Humanity, the American Red Cross, and Boys and Girls Clubs, as well as many small faith-based and community organizations. These groups help recruit, place and supervise participants. Participants in the AmeriCorps Education Awards Program are required to perform 1,700 hours of community service at a pre-approved school in exchange for $4,725 in financial aid for college tuition and student loan repayment. The March 8, 3-0 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reverses a lower courts decision. In the lower court decision, Kessler noted that "direct government involvement with religion crosses the vague but palpable line between permissible and impermissible government action under the First Amendment." The appeals court disagreed. Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the appeals court, observed that the participants, who are chosen without regard to religion, teach religion as a matter of personal choice, and are not compensated for doing so. Randolph commented, "The AmeriCorps program creates no incentives for participants to teach religion. They may only count the time they spend in non-religious activities towards their service hours requirement. And if they teach religious subjects, they are prohibited from wearing the AmeriCorps logo when doing so." This means that if AmeriCorps participants did spend time teaching religion or participating in religious activities, such as attending Mass, that time cannot count towards the 1,700 hours of community service that qualifies for financial aid. Randolph further compared the AmeriCorps arrangement to school voucher programs in which the government provides an education subsidy to individuals, who in turn decide whether to use the vouchers at a religious or secular institution. However, in voucher programs, any school that wants to participate is eligible to do so. There is no government selection of schools. In this case, the government is pre-approving the schools which will receive government funds. The government made the case that religious and secular services were always kept separate. However, the AJC alleged that there is very little monitoring of the program, and any current monitoring is a result of the lawsuit. According to Marc Stern, AJC’s assistant executive director, "We have documents from a Freedom of Information Act request, which shows AmeriCorps people listed as teaching religion and nothing else." While Stern did not indicate whether AJC would appeal the decision, this may be a factor in deciding whether to appeal. AJC has 90 days to appeal the decision. According to AJC, the government is relying on the children knowing the distinction between the AmeriCorps volunteer teaching a secular class and the same individual not representing AmeriCorps as a religious teacher. The Supreme Court, in Grand Rapids City Board of Education v. Ball, held that children cannot be expected to know that in one period teachers are religious school employees, and in another period they are secular employees who are not able to teach religion.