free exercise thereof.” -- 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, decided a major 1st Amendment case involving both the establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion clauses of the 1st Amendment.
So what happens when a state's effort to avoid establishing a religion collides with a church's free exercise of its religion?
The court summarized the facts:
"The Missouri Department of Natural Resources offers state grants to help public and private schools, nonprofit daycare centers, and other nonprofit entities purchase rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires.
"Trinity Lutheran applied for such a grant for its preschool and daycare center.
"The ... Center is ... open throughout the year to serve working families. It admits students of any religion. Enrollment stands at about 90 children, ranging from age two to five.
"... it would have received one, but for the fact that Trinity Lutheran is a church.
"The Department had a policy of categorically disqualifying churches and other religious organizations from receiving grants under its playground resurfacing program.
"The Department ultimately awarded 14 grants in 2012. Because the Center was operated by Trinity Lutheran Church, it was denied a grant."
The Court then set out the issue:
"The question presented is whether the Department’s policy violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Trinity Lutheran sued alleging that the department’s failure to approve the venter’s application, pursuant to its policy of denying grants to religiously affiliated applicants, violates the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The lower courts held for the department. The Supreme Court reversed, saying:
"The Free Exercise Clause 'protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment' and subjects to the strictest scrutiny, laws that target the religious for 'special disabilities' based on their 'religious status.'
"... this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest 'of the highest order.'
"Consequently, [a state] cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans ... or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.
"A law, we said, may not discriminate against 'some or all religious beliefs.' Nor may a law regulate or outlaw conduct because it is religiously motivated. ...
"The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character."
The Missouri Department contended that merely declining to extend funds to Trinity Lutheran does not prohibit the church from engaging in any religious conduct or otherwise exercising its religious rights.
The court answered:
"It is true the Department has not criminalized the way Trinity Lutheran worships or told the Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gospel. But, ... the Free Exercise Clause protects against 'indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.'
"The express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the Church -- solely because it is a church -- to compete with secular organizations for a grant. ... The 'injury in fact' is the inability to compete on an equal footing in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract).
"In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply."
Missouri argued its "compelling interest" was its "policy preference" for "skating" as far as possible from any possible "establishment of religion."
The court responded:
“The state interest asserted here -- in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution -- is limited by the Free Exercise Clause.”
So the bottom line is this: If the state is handing out balls and bats and/or playground equipment to not-for-profits, if you are a church, get your application in. They can't deny your request simply because your program is church-affiliated. Caveat: establishment of religion precedents would allow the state to refuse to fund a course of study designed to make the applicant a priest or a minister.
Posted: QCOline.com July 9, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, decided a major 1st Amendment case involving both the establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion clauses of the 1st Amendment.
So what happens when a state's effort to avoid establishing a religion collides with a church's free exercise of its religion?
The court summarized the facts:
"The Missouri Department of Natural Resources offers state grants to help public and private schools, nonprofit daycare centers, and other nonprofit entities purchase rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires.
"Trinity Lutheran applied for such a grant for its preschool and daycare center.
"The ... Center is ... open throughout the year to serve working families. It admits students of any religion. Enrollment stands at about 90 children, ranging from age two to five.
"... it would have received one, but for the fact that Trinity Lutheran is a church.
"The Department had a policy of categorically disqualifying churches and other religious organizations from receiving grants under its playground resurfacing program.
"The Department ultimately awarded 14 grants in 2012. Because the Center was operated by Trinity Lutheran Church, it was denied a grant."
The Court then set out the issue:
"The question presented is whether the Department’s policy violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Trinity Lutheran sued alleging that the department’s failure to approve the venter’s application, pursuant to its policy of denying grants to religiously affiliated applicants, violates the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The lower courts held for the department. The Supreme Court reversed, saying:
"The Free Exercise Clause 'protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment' and subjects to the strictest scrutiny, laws that target the religious for 'special disabilities' based on their 'religious status.'
"... this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest 'of the highest order.'
"Consequently, [a state] cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans ... or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.
"A law, we said, may not discriminate against 'some or all religious beliefs.' Nor may a law regulate or outlaw conduct because it is religiously motivated. ...
"The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character."
The Missouri Department contended that merely declining to extend funds to Trinity Lutheran does not prohibit the church from engaging in any religious conduct or otherwise exercising its religious rights.
The court answered:
"It is true the Department has not criminalized the way Trinity Lutheran worships or told the Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gospel. But, ... the Free Exercise Clause protects against 'indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.'
"The express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the Church -- solely because it is a church -- to compete with secular organizations for a grant. ... The 'injury in fact' is the inability to compete on an equal footing in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract).
"In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply."
Missouri argued its "compelling interest" was its "policy preference" for "skating" as far as possible from any possible "establishment of religion."
The court responded:
“The state interest asserted here -- in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution -- is limited by the Free Exercise Clause.”
So the bottom line is this: If the state is handing out balls and bats and/or playground equipment to not-for-profits, if you are a church, get your application in. They can't deny your request simply because your program is church-affiliated. Caveat: establishment of religion precedents would allow the state to refuse to fund a course of study designed to make the applicant a priest or a minister.
Posted: QCOline.com July 9, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment