Boy this ought to piss off the intolerant bigoted progressives....
Religious Liberty Lives
A 7-2 Supreme Court rebukes a relic of anti-Catholic bigotry.
A rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building for the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer case, April 19. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
June 26, 2017 6:48 p.m. ET
54 COMMENTS
Religious freedom is making a comeback at the Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 Monday that churches can’t be denied access to a public benefit because they’re religious.
Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., applied to participate in a state program that recycles old tires to resurface school playgrounds. The church’s application ranked fifth in quality out of 44, but the state denied its application under language in the state constitution that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.” That is a relic of the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments that swept the country in the late 1800s to deny public funds to religious schools. (Trinity Lutheran v. Comer).
Chief Justice John Roberts overruled the state, noting that the church isn’t seeking a subsidy but only to participate in a public program “without having to disavow its religious character.” Denying it participation for that reason violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The state “has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion,” Justice Roberts writes. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”
Missouri tried to evade this logic by arguing that the case follows Locke v. Davey (2004) when the Court ruled that Washington state could bar a public scholarship program from being used to pursue a theology degree. This is different, Justice Roberts explained. “Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”
One surprise in the ruling is that the majority included liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. They may have been appeased by an intriguing footnote in which Chief Justice Roberts avers that the case “involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”
That suggests a narrow opinion that isn’t opening the door to other religious uses of state funds, such as school choice. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to draw out the broader principle that government may not exclude a group from a public benefit based on religion, period. The Justices are likely to see new challenges in this area, which may explain the ferocity of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. For now we’ll hail even a narrow rejection of Blaine-style bigotry.
Appeared in the June 27, 2017, print edition.
Religious Liberty Lives
A 7-2 Supreme Court rebukes a relic of anti-Catholic bigotry.
A rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building for the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer case, April 19. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
June 26, 2017 6:48 p.m. ET
54 COMMENTS
Religious freedom is making a comeback at the Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 Monday that churches can’t be denied access to a public benefit because they’re religious.
Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., applied to participate in a state program that recycles old tires to resurface school playgrounds. The church’s application ranked fifth in quality out of 44, but the state denied its application under language in the state constitution that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.” That is a relic of the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments that swept the country in the late 1800s to deny public funds to religious schools. (Trinity Lutheran v. Comer).
Chief Justice John Roberts overruled the state, noting that the church isn’t seeking a subsidy but only to participate in a public program “without having to disavow its religious character.” Denying it participation for that reason violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The state “has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion,” Justice Roberts writes. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”
Missouri tried to evade this logic by arguing that the case follows Locke v. Davey (2004) when the Court ruled that Washington state could bar a public scholarship program from being used to pursue a theology degree. This is different, Justice Roberts explained. “Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”
One surprise in the ruling is that the majority included liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. They may have been appeased by an intriguing footnote in which Chief Justice Roberts avers that the case “involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”
That suggests a narrow opinion that isn’t opening the door to other religious uses of state funds, such as school choice. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to draw out the broader principle that government may not exclude a group from a public benefit based on religion, period. The Justices are likely to see new challenges in this area, which may explain the ferocity of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. For now we’ll hail even a narrow rejection of Blaine-style bigotry.
Appeared in the June 27, 2017, print edition.
