While ... an effect of this taking is to advance a religious organization’s mission to provide faith-based educational services, this is clearly not the principal or primary effect. The principal or primary effect ... is to eliminate blight in this long-suffering neighborhood. One secondary effect is the provision of quality nondenominational educational opportunities to low-income urban families in their own neighborhood... Another secondary effect could potentially be the advancement of religion; however, as far as we can tell from the record, all potential developers were treated in the same manner...[Corrected:] Justice Baer dissented arguing that the action amounted to direct aid to a religious institution in violation of the Establishment Clause. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
PA Supreme Court Rejects Establishment Clause Challenge To Eminent Domain [Corrected]
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to Philadelphia's use of eminent domain to permit redevelopment of blighted property by a coalition of Catholic groups wishing to build a non-denominational, faith-based, not tuition based school for children of the neighborhood. In In re A Condemnation Proceeding In Rem by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, (PA Sup Ct., Dec. 27, 2007), the court found that the city's conduct passed the Lemon test under the Establishment Clause. The court said, in part: