Why does the cantonal government object if Parliament voted in favour of the ban?

The State Council fears that the ban violates the Federal Constitution and the case law of the Federal Court of 2015. According to this fundamental ruling, the neutrality of the State, the integrative function of the school and gender equality are not sufficient to justify a ban on religious clothing in public schools. The government is calling on Parliament to consider the real risk of a costly and likely lost legal battle.

What did the Federal Court decide in 2015?

The fundamental judgment of 2015 defined that public interests such as the neutrality of the State, the integrative function of the school and equality between men and women are not sufficient to justify a ban on religious clothing. This decision represents a relevant and binding precedent for assessing the constitutionality of any cantonal law on the subject.

Does the ban only apply to the veil or to all religious headgear?

The motion refers specifically to the veil, but critics charge that the ban would only affect Islam while it would not prohibit other religious headgear such as the Jewish kippah. This would constitute direct discrimination prohibited by the Swiss Federal Constitution, as underlined by the Liberal Green Party and the Socialist Party.

What happens now after Parliament's vote?

The Council of State must draft a law that translates the motion into applicable law. Once drafted, it is very likely that there will be an appeal to the Federal Court by political opponents, concerned parents or human rights organisations, who will challenge the rule based on the 2015 ruling and the principles of religious freedom.

Could this affect other Swiss cantons?

Although the source does not specify whether other cantons will take similar measures, a legal battle that sees the Federal Court upholding (or rejecting) the ban will have national repercussions and could influence political debate in other Swiss cantons on the issue of religious freedom in public schools.

Aargau towards a ban on headscarves in schools (cross-border guide)

Di Redazione Frontaliere Ticino · Published on 25 August 2026

Swiss school building with diverse students in courtyard, authentic educational setting.

The Argovian Grand Council approved the motion with 78 votes. Cantonal government objects due to constitutional doubts on the basis of the 2015 Federal Court ruling.

Context

In a nutshell

Argovian Grand Council approves ban with 78 yes and 54 no
Concerns pupils up to the age of sixteen
Cantonal government invokes doubts of unconstitutionality
Legal battle presumably unavoidable

Key facts

What: Motion to ban headscarves in public schools
When: Tuesday (Grand Council vote)
Where: Canton Aargau (northern Switzerland)
Who: Argovian Parliament; promoters UDC, PLR, Centro, UDF
Votes: 78 in favour, 54 against
Age limit: Up to sixteenth year
Opposition: Council of State and left/green parties

The parliament of the canton of Aargau on Tuesday passed a motion to ban public school girls from wearing headscarves until the age of sixteen. The decision, voted by seventy-eight votes in favour and fifty-four against, represents a decisive step towards limiting religious freedom in Swiss public schools, despite facing strong resistance from the cantonal government.

The motion was tabled by representatives of four political forces: the Centre Democratic Union (UDC), the Radical Liberal Party (PLR), the Centre and the Federal Democratic Union (UDF). During the heated parliamentary debate, these parties argued that the veil in schools contradicts Swiss values of gender equality and state neutrality. The sponsor of the motion Adrian Schoop, a member of the PLR, said that for decades

Operational details

Constitutional Criticism and Perceived Discrimination

The motion passed by the Argovian Parliament immediately clashes with a series of significant legal objections. The parliamentary opposition denounces that the ban on the veil would affect only one religious community - that Muslim - while it would exempt other religious headdresses such as the Jewish kippah, thus constituting direct discrimination prohibited by the Federal Constitution.

The Liberal Green Party (PVL) made this criticism explicit, calling the ban “clearly unconstitutional” for its selectivity. The Socialist Party (PS) has added a further layer of legal analysis: a clothing ban targeting a specific group would fall directly under the protection against discrimination provided by Swiss law, making it federally illegitimate. Both parties stress that the Swiss state cannot erect regulatory barriers that selectively affect a religious community.

The alternative approach of the Greens

The Greens present an alternative perspective, rejecting symbolic politics. According to this position, the real issues-protecting girls from possible family pressures-could be addressed through social intervention mechanisms and dedicated educational support rather than through legislative prohibitions that could be counterproductive and constitutionally

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

Next steps: from approval to implementation

Tuesday's vote commits the Council of State to draft a law that translates the parliamentary motion into applicable law. However, this assignment takes place in a context of significant uncertainties. The cantonal government, already declared to be opposed, will have to draw up a legislative text knowing that each provision will be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny by the Federal Court.

The structure of the law is critically important. A ban formulated as an "absolute veto of the veil" could be an ineffective and potentially discriminatory tool. Recourse to the Federal Court seems almost inevitable: any parent affected by the ban, or human rights organizations active in Switzerland, could challenge the rule by citing the 2015 ruling and the articles of the Federal Constitution on religious freedom and anti-discrimination.

Implications for teachers and the school community

Meanwhile, teachers and principals remain in an administrative gray area. If the motion were to be implemented without a robust legal basis, they could find themselves applying a prohibition that the court would subsequently invalidate, creating administrative confusion and legal risks for educational institutions. For the families and girls concerned, the issue touches on the broader right to wellbeing in an inclusive school community,

Source: tio.ch

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the cantonal government object if Parliament voted in favour of the ban?: The State Council fears that the ban violates the Federal Constitution and the case law of the Federal Court of 2015. According to this fundamental ruling, the neutrality of the State, the integrative function of the school and gender equality are not sufficient to justify a ban on religious clothing in public schools. The government is calling on Parliament to consider the real risk of a costly and likely lost legal battle.
What did the Federal Court decide in 2015?: The fundamental judgment of 2015 defined that public interests such as the neutrality of the State, the integrative function of the school and equality between men and women are not sufficient to justify a ban on religious clothing. This decision represents a relevant and binding precedent for assessing the constitutionality of any cantonal law on the subject.
Does the ban only apply to the veil or to all religious headgear?: The motion refers specifically to the veil, but critics charge that the ban would only affect Islam while it would not prohibit other religious headgear such as the Jewish kippah. This would constitute direct discrimination prohibited by the Swiss Federal Constitution, as underlined by the Liberal Green Party and the Socialist Party.
What happens now after Parliament's vote?: The Council of State must draft a law that translates the motion into applicable law. Once drafted, it is very likely that there will be an appeal to the Federal Court by political opponents, concerned parents or human rights organisations, who will challenge the rule based on the 2015 ruling and the principles of religious freedom.
Could this affect other Swiss cantons?: Although the source does not specify whether other cantons will take similar measures, a legal battle that sees the Federal Court upholding (or rejecting) the ban will have national repercussions and could influence political debate in other Swiss cantons on the issue of religious freedom in public schools.