The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, which held that Missouri's decision to exclude houses of worship, including Trinity Lutheran, from a program that provided direct grants to pay for playground resurfacing materials was unconstitutional discrimination against religion.
The case arose from an application the church submitted in 2012 to take part in Missouri's scrap tire grant program, which reimburses the cost of installing a rubberized playground surface made from recycled tires.
Churches and other religious entities can not be flatly denied public money even in states where constitutions explicitly ban such funding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a major religious rights case that narrows the separation of church and state. Today, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that this violates the federal Constitution's Free Exercise Clause by denying Trinity Lutheran an otherwise available public benefit because of its religious status.More news: Pope Francis Warns of Anti-Christian Prosecution in Modern Times
McGinnis, who supports the Supreme Court's majority opinion, said the court didn't allow requiring the church to relinquish a constitutional right in order to receive government aid. "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", she concluded. In April, we noted that the issue was whether Missouri can discriminate against religious institutions in public aid programs.
Three quarters of the U.S. states have provisions similar to Missouri's barring funding for religious entities. In his opinion, Justice Roberts reiterated the Establishment Clause as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".More news: Prince Harry just secretly flew to Toronto to see Meghan Markle
And Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who dissented, are far from convinced that the majority's footnote does enough to stop those broader applications. "The facts here are no different than the State sending inmates of a state prison to a church-affiliated hospital for medical care". Rather than "claiming any entitlement to a subsidy", Trinity Lutheran "instead asserts a right to participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow its religious character". Religious liberty wins are great and important.
"The Department's policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit exclusively due to their religious character", Roberts said.
"These laws, which came to be called Blaine amendments, started in Missouri and they ended in Missouri as well with this Trinity Lutheran Church case", he states. However, Attorney David Cortman with conservative Christian non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom says the ruling continues to leave open the question of what needs can qualify for the grant.More news: Senate Votes to Impose New Sanctions on Russian Federation , 97-2
- MI airport stabbing an 'act of terror'
- Rights group cites Supreme Court in Louisiana abortion suit
- 'Arrogant' Trump sees United States image plummet worldwide
- Will the Trump Rally Die in the Senate?
- McConnell on Trump Healthcare Meeting: 'We Made Good Progress'
- Susan Collins: Trump hasn't learned how to work with Congress
- AMD pushes new frontiers as first Vega graphics card goes on sale
- Oilers sign forward Zack Kassian to 3-year extension
- Syria Frees 672 Prisoners to Boost Reconciliation Process
- Euro rallies, weak dollar lifts oil