The impact of a favorable decision for the church will not be to require state governments to pay for all churches to have rubberized play area floors. It will be to require that churches be considered along with other types of nonprofit when applying for grants for secular activities. I think this is a silly case, though.
If no work was done beforehand, then that objection is rescinded. It remains to be seen how the court will rule on the state’s position in regards to their interpretation of the establishment of religion.
A Supreme court case to decide whether a state constitution violates the federal is kind of hard for me to call “silly”.
There are serious implications about the flow of money. The question in pervious cases were related to cases where money was given to religious organizations due to the selection of a citizen and not directly from the government to an organization with a primary goal of proselytization.
There is a very serious issue surrounding both states rights and the anti-establishment clause if states are constitutionally required to fund church operations directly.
This would basically preempt states right to enact rules intended to avoid claims of antiestablishmentarianism due to a perceived official state religion. (sorry had to take the opportunity to use that word)
Yes, but a Supreme Court case to decide whether a state constitutional provision violates the federal constitution when SCOTUS has already decided that it doesn’t is not hard to call silly.
There are conflicting decisions, primarily due to this question applying to situations where the funds were not directly awarded to the religious institution.
While there is the “Lemon test”
But Locke v. Davey has resulted in this lawsuit and I assume that the court took the question in order to limit or clarify the Locke decision which is in conflict with the Lemon test in this case.
While the subject (free shredded tires) may seem trivial the decision is not. This case being appealed to the highest court is very much part of the wedge strategy of the religious right not because of playground improvements but the far broader implications for their effort to establish federally funded private religious schools.
This is a critical front line fight for them in their one sided “war against white America”
There are lots of taxes aside from federal income taxes that even poor people pay such as sales tax and property tax (if they rent their share of the property tax is baked into their rent). The church does not pay such taxes.
Fair point.
Substitute, then, any non-religious non-profit organization.
Can you provide a situation where a non-religious non-profit organization would violate the establishment clause or an amendment in a state constitution targeted at the same issue?
I think this case is pretty much tied to the questions posed by Locke and Lemon and really don’t apply outside of that context.
I’m going to ignorantly predict that Trinity prevails, and the the case be remanded for further consideration given the court’s future guidance. It will be 6-3, based on the idea that you cannot exclude an entity based on their religious nature if there is no establishment clause concern. I am guessing a bit - but I think it’s more interesting when you have a stake in the outcome.
I was merely hitting CandidGamera’s softball,“Wow, a Church that feels entitled to taxpayer money despite paying no taxes,” question.
I agree that Locke has one side and Lemon has the other.
Question: how does the tax exemption for religious groups work in the US? Is it all property owned by a religious group? or only the portion of the property used for public worship?
Reason I ask is I’m just trying to follow along. In my province, the tax exemption is only for parts of buildings used for public worship. If the religious body has a large building but parts of it are used for administration, those parts are taxed. And a private chapel used only by the minister/priest/rabbi is taxed, since that’s not public worship.
Also, one of the posters above said that churches don’t pay sales tax. That really surprises me. Does the priest/rabbi/minister just declare an exemption when purchasing things, and the sales tax is waived?
Sales tax is a State/Local item and varies. In my state all “real and personal property owned by a nonprofit recognized religious denomination used exclusively for religious worship and related church purposes” is exempted. This includes churches and homes of the clergy.
Churches and religious organizations are also exempt from income taxes at the federal level. There are other exemptions but they start to get complicated pretty quick.
It may vary state-to-state but when I worked for a non-profit they had number issued by the state which I gave to merchants and they waive the sales tax. If I was in a store I had a piece of paper with the info on it that I’d give them.
Some religious organizations own real estate that is not primarily used for furthering a religious purpose. That real estate is taxed.
But you brought up individuals on food stamps. Looks like more like a failed bunt attempt than a hit on that softball.
Yes, turns out that there was a ready response, which is why I switched the hypo to any non-religious non-profit. Softball.
A lot of people are missing the issue in this case. This case is based around Missouri’s Constitution not the United States Constitution. Missouri’s Constitution forbids giving any public money to any religious organization for pretty much any purpose.
So the question is does Missouri have the right to impose that kind of prohibition? Or does their state constitution violate the United States Constitution? My off-the-cuff speculation is that the Missouri Constitution, while clearly more restrictive than the US Constitution, doesn’t violate the US Constitution. So I expect the Supreme Court to uphold the decision and tell the plaintiffs they’re not going to get their money. If Missourians are unhappy with that, they can amend their constitution.
I also expect that, like the Kelo decision, this decision will be widely misunderstood by the public which will look at the outcome rather than the principles invoked.
It also makes this an interesting case study for conservatives: It can be cast as a religious case, in which case the standard conservative view would be in favor of Trinity, or it can be cast as a states’ rights case, in which case the standard conservative view would be against them.
Not sure that point is being missed.
Whether by bureaucratic decision, regulation, law, or state constitution mandate an outcome that specifically advantages or disadvantages a person or group solely because of their religious nature (or lack thereof) violates First Amendment protections.
In this instance there seems to be no real debate that the deciding factor to deny Trinity’s application was their religious nature. Had they been a non-profit neighborhood beautification group with all else in their application the same then their application would have been approved. Religion was the deciding factor to act against the group.
SCOTUS has unanimously ruled in something of the reverse, that a state constitutional mandate specifically favoring those making a religious statement of faith violates the US Constitution’s First Amendment*. Not a far stretch to say a state constitution mandate disfavoring a group solely based upon its religious nature also fails on First Amendment grounds.
The fact that Trinity is not compelled to apply for the state playground assistance program cannot possibly be an excuse for barring them from the program by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.
Putting the requirement in the State Constitution gives it no special protection. Many states enshrined bans on same sex marriage in their state constitutions. That mattered not one bit when SCOTUS ruled in Obergefell.
*Torasco v, Watkins. The Court also noted 14th Amendment violation on equal protection grounds.