{"id":7649,"date":"2017-08-07T16:29:56","date_gmt":"2017-08-07T21:29:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=7649"},"modified":"2017-11-20T21:21:05","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T02:21:05","slug":"summer-scotus-roundup-playgrounds-and-free-exercise-in-trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2017\/08\/07\/summer-scotus-roundup-playgrounds-and-free-exercise-in-trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer\/","title":{"rendered":"Summer SCOTUS Roundup: Playgrounds and Free Exercise in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Photo courtesy of Aaron Burden<\/a> on Unsplash<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

By Kyle Steenland, Associate Editor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Good news for religious organizations hoping to utilize state offered grants and subsidies; not so good news for those opposed to the potential of taxpayer dollars going to religious institutions. A recent Supreme Court decision, with seven justices for and two against, ruled that states may neither deny religious institutions nor deem them ineligible for state grants on the sole basis of their theological identities. That is not to say that religious organizations are unable to be denied subsidies; rather, they may only be denied based on their merits as applicants.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The events leading to this decision originated on a Missouri playground owned by the Trinity Lutheran Learning Center. The playground\u2019s graveled surface caused many scrapes and bruises, and Trinity Lutheran sought to replace it with a poured-in rubber one made from recycled tire. This rubber surface would come with a reimbursement subsidy provided through Missouri\u2019s Department of Natural Resources (the Department) to qualifying nonprofit organizations.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Department offers the grant on a competitive basis by assigning scores to each applicant based on various criteria. Trinity Lutheran ranked fifth out of 44 applicants, and with 14 applicants typically receiving the grant, Trinity Lutheran was well-qualified to receive it. Instead however, it received a letter of denial from the Department\u2019s Director. This denial was founded in the Department\u2019s reading of Missouri\u2019s Constitution, which it believed deemed any church ineligible from receiving state-operated grants. Trinity Lutheran believed otherwise and filed suit.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In district court, the Department was granted a motion to dismiss with the court citing Locke\u00a0v.\u00a0Davey<\/em>,[4]<\/sup><\/a> a case where a state scholarship program could not be utilized in pursuit of a theological degree. Trinity Lutheran later found no solace in the Eighth Circuit when the appellate court affirmed the district court\u2019s ruling. Finally, Trinity Lutheran appealed to the highest court \u2014 where the justices granted it the reprieve it sought.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In reaching its decision, the majority relied on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a clause that protects religious observers from unequal treatment based on their religious status. Previously, the Supreme Court emphasized that denying a benefit due solely to an organization\u2019s religious identity creates a penalty on religious exercise.<\/em>[6]<\/sup><\/a> The majority stated that the Department requires Trinity Lutheran to \u201crenounce its religious character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available public benefit program, for which it is fully qualified\u201d \u2014 thus imposing a penalty upon Trinity Lutheran\u2019s free exercise of religion and violating the Free Exercise Clause.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The dissent, featuring Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, takes a different approach. The catalyst of the dissent\u2019s argument rests on precedent stating that government money may not be used to directly fund religious exercise.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Further, the dissent states that the funds would be utilized to improve the Center\u2019s facilities \u2014 used to \u201cassist the spiritual growth of\u00a0the children of its members and to spread the Church\u2019s faith to the children of nonmembers\u201d \u2014 and that the playground is integrated with the Church\u2019s religious mission.<\/em>[9]<\/sup><\/a> The dissent further states that a government may not support a house of worship with taxpayer dollars and that doing so removes secularity from the government.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Overall, this case represents a contemporary approach to religion and governmental secularity in an era where approaching such topics may be becoming increasingly difficult. Both the majority and dissent highlight the merits on each side of this conversation, and both underscore the difficulty in separating something so integral to society\u2019s fabric from the government that oversees it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022 (2017).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at 2017.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> 540 U.S. 712 (2004).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Trinity<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. at 2025-2026.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> McDaniel v. Paty<\/em>, 435 U. S. 618, 628 (1978); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye<\/em>, Inc. v. Hialeah<\/em>, 508 U. S. 520 (1993).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Trinity<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. at 2023.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> See<\/em>\u00a0Everson\u00a0v.\u00a0Board of Ed. of Ewing<\/em>, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947);\u00a0Mitchell<\/em>, 530 U.S. at 840.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Trinity<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. at 2029.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  By Kyle Steenland, Associate Editor Good news for religious organizations hoping to utilize state offered grants and subsidies; not so good news for those opposed to the potential of taxpayer dollars going to religious institutions. A recent Supreme Court decision, with seven justices for and two against, ruled that [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[1303,1876,1880,108,1863,1864,1870,555,1869,1867,1868,1874,1875,557,1878,1877,1879,1873,1872,1871,112,1866,1865,641],"class_list":["post-7649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts","tag-church","tag-churches","tag-eighth-circuit","tag-first-amendment","tag-free-exercise","tag-free-exercise-clause","tag-locke-v-davey","tag-missouri","tag-missouri-department-of-natural-resources","tag-playground","tag-playgrounds","tag-religion","tag-religious","tag-scotus","tag-secularism","tag-secularity","tag-separation-of-church-and-state","tag-state-subsidy","tag-subsidies","tag-subsidy","tag-supreme-court","tag-trinity-lutheran","tag-trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7649"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7652,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7649\/revisions\/7652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}