Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer

Last updated
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2017
Decided June 26, 2017
Full case nameTrinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., Petitioner v. Carol S. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Docket no. 15-577
Citations582 U.S. ___ ( more )
137 S. Ct. 2012; 198 L. Ed. 2d 551; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4061; 2017 WL 2722410
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior976 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (W.D. Mo. 2013); 788 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 891 (2016).
Holding
Missouri's policy violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status. (Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Alito, Kagan; Thomas, Gorsuch (except footnote 3)
ConcurrenceThomas (in part), joined by Gorsuch
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in part), joined by Thomas
ConcurrenceBreyer (in judgment)
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The original 1820 Constitution of Missouri contained a provision prohibiting tax dollars from funding the construction of churches or the salaries of ministers, in like manner to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. [3] : 168  In 1870, controversy over Catholic schools in St. Louis led Missouri to adopt a constitutional amendment prohibiting any funding of a school “controlled by any creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever.” [3] : 167  In 1875, Missouri adopted a new constitution that carried forward the provision prohibiting parochial school funding, and adding a section declaring “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion”. [3] : 168  [4] In 1876, the Blaine Amendment to the United States Constitution, which sought to combat the perceived threat Catholics posed to the nation’s Protestant character by prohibiting public funding of parochial schools, failed. [5]

Trinity Lutheran Church operates a licensed preschool and daycare in Columbia, Missouri that was initially opened as a non-profit corporation but merged with the church in 1985. [3] : 134  The preschool and daycare has an open admissions policy and incorporates daily religious instruction into its programs. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources offers grants that provide funds for qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. Trinity applied for such a grant. [6] The state gave out fourteen such grants that year, and graded the church's application with the fifth highest score, but denied the grant, citing the 1875 provision requiring no state aid of churches. [3] : 135 

The church brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, arguing that the denial of its application violated the Equal Protection Clause as well as the First Amendment's protections of freedom of religion and speech. On September 26, 2013, District Judge Nanette Kay Laughrey granted DNR Director Sarah Parker Pauly's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. [7] Trinity moved for reconsideration and to amend its complaint to include allegations that such grants had previously been given to religious organizations, which the District Court then denied. [8]

On May 29, 2015, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Judge James B. Loken, joined by Judge Michael Joseph Melloy, affirmed the District Court, over the partial dissent of Judge Raymond Gruender. On August 11, 2015, a rehearing en banc was denied by an equally divided circuit, with Judges Gruender, William J. Riley, Lavenski Smith, Steven Colloton, and Bobby Shepherd voting to review. [9]

On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Church's petition for a writ of certiorari, certifying the question of, "Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern." [10] Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Court twelve days before the case was argued in April 2017. [11] : 112  Six days before oral argument, Eric Greitens, Missouri’s new Republican Governor, issued a press release announcing that the DNR had been told to allow religious organizations to compete for the tire scrap grants. [3] : 136  [12] One day before oral argument, Josh Hawley, Missouri's new Republican Attorney General, recused himself and announced that the state's former Solicitor General would instead argue the case for the state. [3] : 136  On April 19, 2017, one hour of oral arguments were heard, where an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom appeared for the church and the former Missouri Solicitor General appeared for that state. [8]

Opinion of the Court

On June 26, 2017, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the church, with seven justices voting to reverse the court below. [2] Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion joined fully by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan, and partially by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that the state violated the First Amendment by denying a public benefit to an otherwise eligible recipient solely on account of its religious status, calling it "odious to our Constitution" to exclude the church from the grant program, even though the consequences are only "a few extra scraped knees." [13]

The Court read McDaniel v. Paty , 435 U.S. 618 (1978), in which a plurality of Justices had found that ministers could not be disqualified from becoming delegates to a state constitutional convention, as holding that special disabilities imposed due to religious status are subject to strict scrutiny. [11] : 113  The Court then found that Missouri's treatment of the church as a church discriminated against it due to its religious status. [11] : 114 

The Chief Justice stopped short of a more blanket ruling, adding a footnote to clarify that the case "involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing" and that the Court was not addressing "religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination." [14] Justices Thomas and Gorsuch did not join this footnote in the opinion. [15]

The Court noted that Locke v. Davey , 540 U.S. 712 (2004) upheld the state of Washington's decision not to fund students seeking degrees in devotional theology as part of a state scholarship program, but said the state did not want to force students to give up their religious views; for instance, the scholarships could be used at religious schools. [16] Missouri could not rely on Locke here, the Court explained, because devotional theology is an essentially religious endeavor while playground resurfacing is not. [17] While the state may discriminate against funding activities for being religious, it cannot discriminate against persons simply for being religious. [11] : 115  Finally, the Court found that the discrimination against the church failed strict scrutiny because Missouri did not have a compelling government interest in enforcing a stricter separation of church and state than that found already in the U.S. Constitution. [11] : 115 

Thomas's concurrence

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred in part with the opinion of the Court. He joined nearly all of the opinion, but did not join footnote 3. [14] He took issue with the Court's endorsement in Locke of even a "mild kind" of discrimination against religion, but since the Court "appropriately construes Locke narrowly," he was able to join nearly all of the opinion. [1]

Gorsuch's concurrence

Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred in part. He offered two qualifications: first, that "the Court leaves open the possibility a useful distinction might be drawn between laws that discriminate on the basis of religious status and religious use," and second, that footnote 3 may lead some to read that the Court's ruling applies only in cases involving a playground "or only those with some association with children’s safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy." [1]

Breyer's concurrence in judgment

Justice Stephen Breyer concurred only in the judgment. Citing the Court's ruling in Everson v. Board of Education , 330 U.S. 1 (1947), where Justice Hugo Black wrote that depriving parochial schools from "general government services as ordinary police and fire protection...is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment," Breyer equated Missouri's program with the general government services in Everson. [1]

Sotomayor's dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, read from her dissenting opinion from the bench. It took strong exception to the ruling, saying it "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." [15] Further, "[t]he 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." [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Lemon was a major precedent in federal and local courts until it was effectively overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Blaine Amendment Failed amendment to the United States Constitution

The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Most state constitutions already had such provisions, and thirty-eight of the fifty states have clauses that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Neil Gorsuch US Supreme Court justice since 2017 (born 1967)

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an American lawyer and judge who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and has served since April 10, 2017.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications. The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The university's defense claimed that denying student activity funding of the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause, and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However, exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply, was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the State's method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one. The Court's opinion emphasized the precedential force of its prior decisions in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In an unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied his request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,No. 15-577 , 582 U.S. ___(2017).
  2. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2017). "States Must Aid Some Church Programs, Justices Rule". The New York Times . p. A13.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Douglas Laycock, The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Comment: Churches, Playgrounds, Government Dollars — and Schools?, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 133 (2017).
  4. ↑ Mo. Const.: art. I, § 7
  5. ↑ Philip Hamburger (20 June 2017). "Prejudice and the Blaine Amendments". First Things . Retrieved 26 November 2017.
  6. ↑ Richard W. Garnett (2 August 2017). "Consensus & Uncertainty at the Supreme Court". Commonweal . Retrieved 26 November 2017.
  7. ↑ Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, 976F.Supp.2d1137 (W.D. Mo.2013).
  8. 1 2 Oyez: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
  9. ↑ Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, 788F.3d779 (8th Cir.2015).
  10. ↑ No. 15-577: Question Presented
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Richard W. Garnett and Jackson C. Blais, Religious Freedom and Recycled Tires: The Meaning and Implications of Trinity Lutheran, 2016–2017 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 105 (2017)
  12. ↑ Office of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens (April 13, 2017): Governor Greitens Announces New Policy to Defend Religious Freedom
  13. 1 2 Hananel, Sam; Sherman, Mark (June 27, 2017). "Supreme Court rules for Missouri church in playground case". Associated Press.
  14. 1 2 Full footnote: "This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination." (Slip op. at 14)
  15. 1 2 Wermund, Benjamin; Emma, Caitlin (June 26, 2017). "States must support some church programs, high court rules". Politico.
  16. ↑ Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court sides with religious institutions in a major church-state decision". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 28, 2020.
  17. ↑ Slip Op. at 13.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.