Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer

Great Debates
1

So,this is a court case coming up.

It’ll be the first major case that comes before the new court with Gorsuch.

Apparently, it’s a bit contentious.

To summarize, the church applied for reimbursement for rubberizing its playground to the state, and the state denied it because it was a religious institution, and it said that it does not give grants to religious institutions.

I’m of mixed minds about this myself.

On the one hand, I don’t disagree that tax dollars should go to more secular activities, and of course, the fact that the church pays no taxes itself makes me feel a bit more disinclined to side with them.

On the other, it’s a playground, not a sanctuary or narthex, and they claim it is open to the public (a claim I am interested in knowing more information on, as the church down my street has a playground that they claimed was open to the public, but it is fenced in with “no trespassing” signs).

The state claims that paying for the playground would be promoting the church, and therefore a religion, the church claims that this would not be the case.

I don’t know, kinda a week OP, I’m sorry, but I am interested in this, and am not finding all that much information about the specifics, and kindof surprisingly, no one else has started a thread about it (that I could see, anyway). Like, are private parks eligible, and how public is the church’s park?

2

With that kind of expenditure, you would think the church would have tried to find out beforehand if this reimbursement plan was feasible. Did they ask the proper peoples beforehand?

3

This is an equal protection issue, IMO. If other playgrounds receive compensation, then this church should be compensated as well.

4

only if ALL playgrounds are open to the public.

5

But not all playground receives compensation, this was a grant. 14 out of the 44 that applied got it (if I remember the numbers correctly, and it was deep in one of those documents.)

Not giving the funds to a church while leaving non-religious organizations without is not the same as having funds available for anyone who asks, and denying the church.

6

I recommend reading the Eighth Circuit’s decision to learn more about this. Even though I’m not a legal eagle, I didn’t find it a hard read. If I didn’t have to head out the door shortly, I’d summarize. Maybe later.

7

Wow, a Church that feels entitled to taxpayer money despite paying no taxes, and argues all the way to the Supreme Court trying to overturn an article of a state Constitution just to get a little cash for a playground.

I hope the Court slaps them down so hard that their pointy little heads spin, despite the addition of imposter jurist Gorsuch.

8

On what grounds should they be slapped down, specifically?

It can’t be “paying no taxes and getting taxpayer money,” because I assume you support food stamps, whose recipients can fall into that category.

It can’t be trying to overturn an article of a state constitution, because I assume you were on board with the efforts to overturn Prop 8.

Is it the cash for the playground? No one can ask the Court to step in when the issue is cash for a playground?

9

Imposter jurist Gorsuch is now Associate Justice Gorsuch; he just took the oath.

It’s done.

10

I disagree. If the reason that this application was rejected was because of the religious nature of the organization (and it clearly was), that’s potentially problematic. Imagine if this was an employment situation: there are 44 applications for 14 openings. First we reject all the blacks. Then, among the remaining applications, we determine who gets a job. I don’t think you would say (and I certainly wouldn’t) that not giving a job to a black applicant while also leaving a white applicant unemployed was fine in that circumstance.

The interesting thing about this case is that the First Amendment sets a floor and a ceiling on government relationships with religious organizations. While with most rights a state is free to provide more protection that constitutionally required, here, at some point, establishment “protection” becomes a free exercise problem.

11

Yep, it’s an interesting read. It seems to boil down to the question of whether Missouri’s high wall of separation between church and state is constitutional.

My personal preference would be that the government at all levels turned a blind eye to religion and was forbidden from considering it at all in any decisionmaking. Thus, no automatic tax exemption for churches, no religious exemptions to laws, no RFRA, but also no grants that exempted organizations just because they’re religious.

The church in question seems to want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the state to consider them a religious institution when it benefits them, and to have the state turn a blind eye when that’s what benefits the church. I’m not down with that.

12

Wow, this IS interesting. The issue comes down to whether or not the Missouri state constitution, and it’s stricter-than-the-US-constitution’s Establishment Clause, violates the US constitution. Not at all what I was expecting, and not at all obvious on the face of it what the answer is.

13

I think that Kennedy’s position will be dispositive. The certiorari petition was granted in January of 2016, before Justice Scalia died. Thus, I would assume the four justices voting in favor of hearing the case were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. I have no doubt they would be willing to take Scalia’s dissent in Locke and apply it here.

Personally, I think it’s a stretch to say that a government MUST give money to a church, even if the citizens of the state have, in their constitution, said that the state should NEVER give money to ANY church. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court agreed. It will be interesting to see if Justice Kennedy still agrees with that proposition, regardless of the outcome of the case.

14

If multiple groups apply for a limited number of grants, should churches be given preferential treatment?

15

Churches should not get preferential treatment. Nor should they be singled out for more harsh treatment on the basis of their religious nature alone.

IMHO the problem with this case is that the church qualified on the basis of the neutral guidelines but were rejected specifically because they are a religious organization. I don’t think that will pass muster at SCOTUS.

16

According to the state, their grant was the fifth best (absent the church prohibition), and 14 grants were given. A state that was blind to religion would have given them the grant.

17

The grant funds are restricted to non-profit entities, though, who are all tax-exempt. None of the recipients of the playground grants pay any taxes.

“Reimbursement” was a misnomer in the OP. The church applied for the permit (and was denied) before any work was performed.

18

I foresee a lot of churches in the future asking the government for money for their playgrounds. Because of the kids, of course.

19

? Other than for kids, what are playgrounds for?

20

This case opens that possibility *if *the court rules in favor of the church and the state already has a similar program for playground enhancements at nonprofit organizations.

There is no reason to believe that a court ruling in favor of the church in this case would require any state to implement such a playground enhancement program if they do not already have such a program in place.