Supreme Court Holds Denial of Playground Resurfacing Grant To Church Violates Free Exercise Clause [UPDATED]

In a 7-2 decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court today held that the First Amendment free exercise rights of Trinity Lutheran Church were violated when the state of Missouri denied the church's Child Learning Center a grant for resurfacing of its playground with scrap tire material.  The state had relied on Missouri Constitution's Blaine Amendment which prohibits financial assistance directly to any church.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court which was joined in full by Justices Kennedy, Alito and Kagan.  Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Roberts' opinion except for a footnote that attempted to limit the holding to the facts of this case. In his opinion for the Court, Roberts said in part:

In recent years, when this Court has rejected free exercise challenges, the laws in question have been neutral and generally applicable without regard to religion. We have been careful to distinguish such laws from those that single out the religious for disfavored treatment.....

The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.....

Trinity Lutheran is not claiming any entitlement to a subsidy. It instead asserts a right to participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow its religious character.... Trinity Lutheran is a member of the community too, and the State’s decision to exclude it for purposes of this public program must withstand the strictest scrutiny....

Justice Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in part in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a separate opinion concurring in part in which Justice Thomas joined.  Both opinions agreed largely with Justice Roberts, but would have been even stronger in support of the free exercise conclusion.

Justice Sotomayor filed a 27-page dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:

To hear the Court tell it, this is a simple case about recycling tires to resurface a playground. The stakes are higher. This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government—that is, between church and state. The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.....

The constitutional provisions of thirty-nine States—all but invalidated today—the weighty interests they protect, and the history they draw on deserve more than this judicial brush aside.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Cert Filed In Case Testing Limits of Trinity Lutheran Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.  In the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that historic preservation grants to 12 churches (totaling $4.6 million) violate the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.  The Court went on to hold that this interpretation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The petition for review frames the issues in the case as follows:

1. Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a “religious use” that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran [v. Comer].

2. Whether the categorical exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violates Trinity Lutheran and the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

District Court, Citing 1st Circuit Precedent, Upholds Maine's School Funding Plan

In Carson v. Makin, (D ME, June 26, 2019), the Maine federal district court rejected a 1st Amendment challenge to Maine's program for paying tuition to private high schools for students in districts which do not operate their own high schools. The program excludes sectarian schools from participating. The district court approved Maine's plan on the basis of prior 1st Circuit decisions, despite challengers' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer should change the result. The district court said in part:

My decision not to decide the ultimate question the parties and amici pose—whether Trinity Lutheran has changed the outcome in Eulitt—is no great loss for either the parties or the amici. It has always been apparent that, whatever my decision, this case is destined to go to the First Circuit on appeal, maybe even to the Supreme Court. In the First Circuit, the parties can argue their positions about how Trinity Lutheran affects Eulitt. I congratulate them on their written and oral arguments in this court. I hope that the rehearsal has given them good preparation for their argument in the First Circuit (and maybe even higher). My prompt decision allows them to proceed to the next level expeditiously.

(See prior related posting.) Maine Public Radio reports on the decision.

Amicus Briefs In Support of Petitioner In Trinity Lutheran Case Are Now Available

Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley challenging Missouri's exclusion under its "no aid" clause of churches from its secular grant program for playground improvements. (See prior posting.) The deadline for amicus briefs in support of petitioner has now passed, and 25 briefs in support of Trinity Lutheran Church have been filed, along with one amicus brief in support of neither side. Links to all of the amicus briefs are available from the SCOTUSblog case page for the case.  Respondent's brief is not due until June 28, with amicus briefs supporting respondent due a week after that.

Attorneys Get Fee Award In Trinity Lutheran Case

Yesterday, a Missouri federal district court handed down a fee award to successful plaintiff's counsel in last year's important Trinity Lutheran case.  In the case, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the right of a church to participate in a Missouri grant program for school playgrounds. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190824 (WD MO, Nov. 7, 2018), the court awarded attorneys' fees totaling $433,792 for litigating the case from district court through the U.S. Supreme Court.  It also awarded costs and expenses of $32,593. Plaintiff had asked for attorney's fees totaling $840,605.

Trinity Lutheran Decision Does Not Apply to Neutral Ban on Funds to Private Schools

As reported by the Detroit Free Press, a Michigan state Court of Claims judge held this week that the U.S. Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran decision is not a basis for lifting a preliminary injunction issued earlier this month barring payment of $2.5 million the legislature had allocated to private schools to cover the cost of complying with state mandates. That injunction was based on a Michigan state constitutional provision that bars public funds for "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school".  In Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v. State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., July 25, 2017), the court said in part:

... the Court concludes at this juncture that the constitutional provision at issue in this case, Article 8, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution, can be understood as falling within the category of neutral and generally applicable laws, rather than n provision that singles out the religious for disfavored treatment....  [T]his Court is disinclined to extend the Trinity Lutheran decision to a case that plainly does not involve express discrimination.

Synod May Take Over Property of Defunct Church

In Central/Southern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Trinity Lutheran Church of Kankakee, (IL App., March 2, 2021), an Illinois state appellate court held that the parent Synod was entitled to take over the property of a local church whose membership had diminished to the point that it was no longer holding worship services or exercising governance functions. Both the constitution of the Synod and of the congregation provided that the Synod should take over the congregation's property in such cases. However one of the remaining church members changed the locks and prevented the Synod from entering. The court said in part:

Pursuant to both constitutions, the Synod Council determined that Trinity Lutheran was no longer viable and, thus, ceased to exist. Such a decision was within the province of the Synod Council and is an ecclesiastical matter involving church doctrine, polity, and practice. Therefore, we will defer to such a finding.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Trinity Lutheran; Transcript Available

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer.  The transcript of the full oral arguments is now available. At issue was the refusal by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a grant that would allow it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. In refusing the grant, the Department pointed to Missouri Constitution, Art. I Sec. 7, that prohibits public funds from being spent "in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion." (See prior posting.)  Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

SCOTUS Sets Oral Arguments In Trinity Lutheran Case For April 19

The U.S. Supreme Court has set oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley for April 19. (Argument calendar.) In the case, the 8th Circuit rejected arguments that Missouri's Blaine Amendments violate the U.S. Constitution's 1st and 14th Amendments. At issue was the denial by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant that would have allowed it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. (See prior posting.)  The Court granted certiorari in the case over a year ago.  The delay in setting the case for oral argument has led to speculation that the Justices were hoping to hold off hearing the case until a replacement for the late Justice Scalia brought the Court up to its full complement. They may have succeeded since, as reported by The Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee has now set March 20 as the date for hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to begin. SCOTUSblog's case page has links to all the briefs filed in the case and to commentary on the case.

8th Circuit Upholds Missouri's Blaine Amendments Against 1st and 14th Amendment Attack

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc.v. Pauley, (8th Cir., May 29, 2015), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected arguments that Missouri's Blaine Amendments violate the free exercise, establishment and equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution. At issue was the refusal by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant that would allow it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. In refusing the grant, the Department pointed to Missouri Constitution, Art. I Sec. 7, that prohibits public funds from being spent "in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion." The majority said in part:

Trinity Church seeks an unprecedented ruling -- that a state constitution violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause if it bars the grant of public funds to a church. To prevail, Trinity Church must clear a formidable if not insurmountable hurdle, what appears to be controlling adverse precedent.

Judge Gruender dissented, saying that Trinity Church has sufficiently pleaded a Free Exercise violation.

Supreme Court Remands School Aid Cases For Reconsideration In Light of Trinity Lutheran Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in light of its decision this week in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, sent back to the lower courts for reconsideration school aid cases from Colorado and New Mexico.  All the cases remanded involved reliance on state Blaine amendments to invalidate aid to religious schools.  In three consolidated cases from Colorado, the Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgments below, and remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for further consideration. The Colorado cases are Doyle v. Taxpayers for Public Education, (Docket No. 15-556), Douglas City School District v. Taxpayers for Public Education,  (Docket No. 15-557), and Colorado State Board of Education v. Taxpayers for Public Education, (Docket No. 15-558). (June 27, 2017 Order List).  In the cases, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down Douglas County's elaborate Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. (See prior posting.)

In New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses, (Docket No. 15-1409), the Supreme Court also granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for further consideration. In the case, the New Mexico Supreme Court struck down a New Mexico statute that allows the state to lend secular textbooks to private and parochial school students. (See prior posting.)

New Jersey Supreme Court Says Grants To Churches Violate State Constitution

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, (NJ Sup.Ct., April 18, 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that historic preservation grants to 12 churches (totaling $4.6 million) violate the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.  That clause (Art. I, Sec. 3) provides that no person shall be obliged to pay taxes for building or repairing any church. The court concluded that there is no implied exception to this prohibition for historical preservation.

The Court went on to hold that this interpretation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The [U.S. Supreme Court's] holding of Trinity Lutheran does not encompass the direct use of taxpayer funds to repair churches and thereby sustain religious worship activities. See 137 S. Ct. at 2024 n.3. We therefore find that the application of the Religious Aid Clause in this case does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Justice Solomon filed a concurring opinion:

The majority concludes that the present case exceeds the scope of Trinity Lutheran since Morris County’s taxpayer-funded grants “went toward ‘religious uses.’”... However, that conclusion ignores New Jersey’s separate and substantial government interest at stake in this case -- historical preservation. I believe that had Morris County’s program been applied in a fundamentally neutral manner, the Religious Aid Clause could not bar funding to an otherwise qualified religious institution.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.  Daily Record reports on the decision.

Court Upholds FEMA Policy Denying Disaster Grants To Religious Facilities

In Harvest Family Church v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (SD TX, Dec. 7, 2017), a Texas federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a FEMA Policy Guideline that bars disaster relief grants to facilities that are used primarily for religious activities. (The Guideline also bars grants to facilities used primarily for political, athletic, recreational, vocational, or academic activities.)  The court concluded that plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on its Free Exercise challenge to the Guideline.  It held that the case is governed not by the U.S. Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran decision, but instead by the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v. Davey:

[T]he Locke plaintiff was not denied a scholarship because of what he was, but “because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry.” ... In Trinity Lutheran, on the other hand ... [t]he funds were not denied because of what they would be used for—a non-religious use—but because of the church’s status as a religious institution.... In the instant case, FEMA’s policy is closer to the scholarship in Locke. Plaintiffs would use the FEMA funds to rebuild facilities used primarily to promote religious activities.... Further, FEMA’s policy even distinguishes based on use, rather than status or identity....

MySanAntonio.com reports on the decision. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinion Says Ban on Sectarian Charter Schools Is Unconstitutional

 In Attorney General Opinion 2022-7, (Dec. 1, 2022), Oklahoma Attorney General John M. O'Connor concluded that the ban in Oklahoma law on publicly funded charter schools being sectarian or religiously affiliated is unconstitutional. He said in part:

You ask what effect, if any, the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson decisions have on the validity of the non-sectarian restrictions found in Section 3-136(A)(2) of the Oklahoma Charter School Act. That passage states as follows:

A charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations. A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution....

We believe, based on the First Amendment and the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson line of decisions, that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely hold these restrictions unconstitutional....

It is important to emphasize, however, that to the extent that neutral and generally applicable limitations may be found elsewhere in the Act, those limitations can likely be applied to religious charter schools, so long as they are truly neutral and applied equally to all charter schools alike.... The constitutional problem is singling out religion, not necessarily the provisions found elsewhere regulating various aspects of charter schools.

The Oklahoman reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kenneth Einar Himma, An Unjust Dogma: Why a Special Right to Religion Wrongly Discriminates Against Non-Religious Worldviews, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2017).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Is There Any Silver Lining to Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Comer?, (Michigan Law Review Online, Vol. 116, p. 137, 2018).
• Richard W. Garnett & Jackson C. Blais, Religious Freedom and Recycled Tires: The Meaning and Implications of Trinity Lutheran, (2016-17 Cato Supreme Court Review 105).
• Richard W. Garnett, Freedom 'for' Religion: (Yet) Another View of the Cathedral, (in Brett G. Scharffs, Asher Maoz, and Ashley Isaacson Woolley, eds., Religious Freedom and the Law: Emerging Contexts for Freedom for and Freedom From Religion (Routledge 2019 Forthcoming)).
• Nadia N. Sawicki, Disentangling Conscience Protections, (Hastings Center Report, Forthcoming).
• Richard W. Garnett, "Afterword," (in S. Hendrianto, S.J., ed., Priests, Lawyers, and Scholars: Essays in Honor of Robert J. Araujo, S.J." (Franciscan Univ. Press 2017)).
• Barry W. Bussey, The Right of Religious Hospitals to Refuse Physician-Assisted Suicide, ((2018) 85 S.C.L.R. (2d)).
• Netta Barak Corren, The War Within, (May 23, 2018).
• B. Jessie Hill, Sex, Lies, and Ultrasound, (89 University of Colorado Law Review 421 (2018)).
• Reva Siegel & Linda Greenhouse, The Unfinished Story of Roe v. Wade, (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper (2018)).
• Kevin M. Barry & Jennifer Levi, Blatt v. Cabela's Retail, Inc. and a New Path for Transgender Rights, (Yale Law Journal Forum, Vol. 127, p. 373, 2017).
• Albertina Antognini, Against Nonmarital Exceptionalism, (UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 51, 2018 (Forthcoming)).

From SSRN (Islamic law):

• Kerstin Steiner, Branding Islam: Islam, Law and Bureaucracies in Southeast Asia, (37(1) Current Journal of Southeast Asian Affairs (2018)).
• Dominik Müller & Kerstub Steiner, The Bureaucratisation of Islam in Southeast Asia: Transdisciplinary Perspectives,  (37 (1) Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs (2018)).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi & Mark Cammack, Islamic Law in Modern Courts (Introduction), (Aspen Casebook Series, 2018).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Valerie J. Munson, On Holy Ground: Church Sanctuary in the Trump Era, 47 Southwestern Law Review 49-60 (2017).
• Ian P. Farrell. Book Review. From Premodern Christianity to the Postmodern Jury. 53 Tulsa L. Rev. 247-259 (2018). 
• Jason E. Whitehead, Book Review. Faith, Reason, and Liberal Legal Neutrality, 53 Tulsa Law Review 375-393 (2018).
• Robert E. Rains, Icing on the Wedding Cake: Same-sex Marriage and Religious Objections--Is There an Accommodation That Will Make Everyone Equally Happy (Or Unhappy)?, 42 Vermont Law Review 191-225 (2017).
• Elise Goss-Alexander, Policy Focus: Women and Religious Freedom, (USCIRF, May 2018).

Recent Book:

• Mohammad Hashas, Jan Jaap de Ruiter & Niels Valdemar Vinding (eds), Imams in Western Europe: Developments, Transformations, and Institutional Challenges, (Amsterdam University Press, May 2018).

Supreme Court Says Montana Cannot Exclude Religious Schools From Tax-Credit Program

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, (US Sup. Ct., June 30, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from its scholarship tax credit program violates the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The Montana Supreme Court had invalidated the entire scholarship program because it included religious schools, relying on the "no aid" provision of the Montana constitution.  Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, said in part:

This case also turns expressly on religious status and not religious use. The Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision solely by reference to religious status. The Court repeatedly explained that the no-aid provision bars aid to “schools controlled in whole or in part by churches,” “sectarian schools,” and “religiously-affiliated schools.”... Applying this provision to the scholarship program, the Montana Supreme Court noted that most of the private schools that would benefit from the program were “religiously affiliated” and “controlled by churches,” and the Court ultimately concluded that the scholarship program ran afoul of the Montana Constitution by aiding “schools controlled by churches.”... The Montana Constitution discriminates based on religious status just like the Missouri policy in Trinity Lutheran, which excluded organizations “owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity.”...

...Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Gorsuch, saying in part:

I write separately to explain how this Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause continues to hamper free exercise rights. Until we correct course on that interpretation, individuals will continue to face needless obstacles in their attempts to vindicate their religious freedom.

Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Respondents argue that Montana’s no-aid provision merely reflects a state interest in “preserv[ing] funding for public schools,”... known as “common schools” during the Blaine era. Yet just as one cannot separate the Blaine Amendment from its context, “[o]ne cannot separate the founding of the American common school and the strong nativist movement.”  Spearheaded by Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1837 to 1848, the common-school movement did not aim to establish a system that was scrupulously neutral on matters of religion. (In a country like ours, that would have been exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.) Instead the aim was to establish a system that would inculcate a form of “least-common denominator Protestantism.”This was accomplished with daily reading from the King James Bible, a curriculum that, Mann said, let the book “speak for itself.” ... Yet it was an affront to many Christians and especially Catholics, not to mention non-Christians.

Mann’s goal was to “Americanize” the incoming Catholic immigrants. In fact, he and other proponents of the common-school movement used language and made insinuations that today would be considered far more inflammatory.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

 I was not sure about characterizing the State’s discrimination in Trinity Lutheran as focused only on religious status, and I am even less sure about characterizing the State’s discrimination here that way....

Maybe it’s possible to describe what happened here as status-based discrimination. But it seems equally, and maybe more, natural to say that the State’s discrimination focused on what religious parents and schools do—teach religion....

Most importantly, though, it is not as if the First Amendment cares. The Constitution forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That guarantee protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly.

Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Kagan, saying in part:

[T]he Montana court remedied the state constitutional violation by striking the scholarship program in its entirety. Under that decree, secular and sectarian schools alike are ineligible for benefits, so the decision cannot be said to entail differential treatment based on petitioners’ religion.

Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Justice Kagan, saying in part:

It is true that Montana’s no-aid provision broadly bars state aid to schools based on their religious affiliation. But this case does not involve a claim of status-based discrimination. The schools do not apply or compete for scholarships, they are not parties to this litigation, and no one here purports to represent their interests. We are instead faced with a suit by parents who assert that their free exercise rights are violated by the application of the no-aid provision to prevent them from using taxpayer-supported scholarships to attend the schools of their choosing. In other words, the problem, as in Locke, is what petitioners “‘propos[e] to do—use the funds to’” obtain a religious education. ....

I agree with the majority that it is preferable in some areas of the law to develop generally applicable tests. The problem, as our precedents show, is that the interaction of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses makes it particularly difficult to design a test that vindicates the Clauses’ competing interests in all—or even most—cases.That is why, far from embracing mechanical formulas, our precedents repeatedly and frankly acknowledge the need for precisely the kind of “‘judgment-by-judgment analysis’” the majority rejects.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Neither differential treatment nor coercion exists here because the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the tax-credit program entirely....

To be sure, petitioners may want to apply for scholarships and would prefer that Montana subsidize their children’s religious education. But this Court had never before held unconstitutional government action that merely failed to benefit religious exercise....

[T]he Montana Supreme Court remedied a state constitutional violation by invalidating a state program on state-law grounds, having expressly declined to reach any federal issue....

NPR reports on the decision.

Charter School May Not Exclude Vendor That Expresses Religious Views On Its Website

In Our Peculiar Family v. Inspire Charter Schools, (CD CA, June 23, 2020), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a free exercise challenge to the refusal by a publicly funded charter school to contract with an art instruction business because of the business' espousal of religious views on its website. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that their obligation to be “nonsectarian” in administering a school program required them to exclude any vendor that publicly espoused religious views.... Defendants are incorrect. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017)....

Defendants’ policies here are even more preclusive than the unconstitutional policies in Trinity Lutheran. Not only do Defendants’ policies exclude all churches from providing services, they apparently preclude all services by any potential vendor with religious statements on their website. Defendants do not explain how institution of such a categorical requirement is in keeping with their obligation to facilitate “nonsectarian” services, nor do they offer facts to support that Plaintiffs’ application implicated Establishment Clause concerns. 

Another Ruling On Business Refusal To Serve Same-Sex Weddings

In Country Mills Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (WD MI, Dec. 18, 2019), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on most of plaintiff's claims growing out of plaintiff's refusal rent his farm venue for same-sex wedding ceremonies. That refusal led to plaintiff being excluded from participating in the city's farmer's market, The court summarized:

Plaintiffs used Facebook to announce both their religious beliefs and their business practices. The City reacted to the Facebook post, culminating in the denial of Country Mill’s application to participate in the East Lansing Farm’s Market. The parties disagree whether City’s actions were because of Plaintiffs’ statement about their religious beliefs or whether the City’s actions were because of Plaintiffs’ statement about their business practices.  Because the record contains evidence from which the finder of fact could conclude that the City reacted to Plaintiffs’ statements about their religious beliefs, the cross motions for summary judgment must be denied for many of the claims. The trier of fact must decide what the City’s motivation was.

The court, however, did hold that a portion of the city's non-discrimination ordinance is overbroad.  The court also dealt at length with plaintiff's free exercise claims. In part, the court rejected  plaintiff's argument that the Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran decision precludes the city from denying him a public benefit because of his religious belief, saying: "the Trinity Lutheran opinion does not clearly extend beyond religious institutions "

Cert. Filed In Refusal By State To Allow Church School To Participate In Playground Grant Program

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley.  In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that Missouri's Blaine Amendments violate the free exercise, establishment and equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution. At issue was the refusal by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant that would allow it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Missouri Blaine Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, (Docket No. 15-577, cert. granted 1/15/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected arguments that Missouri's Blaine Amendments violate the U.S. Constitution's 1st and 14th Amendments. At issue was the denial by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant that would have allowed it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari (full text) framed the Question Presented as follows:

Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.

SCOTUSblog's case page has links to all the briefs.