For its final act this term, conservative Supreme Court majority resets church-state balance
newsdepo.com
One more big fissure has been opened up in the wall of separation between church and state. As Justice Sotomayor (for herself and Justice Ginsburg) wrote in dissent today: This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutionsFor its final act this term, conservative Supreme Court majority resets church-state balance
One more big fissure has been opened up in the wall of separation between church and state. As Justice Sotomayor (for herself and Justice Ginsburg) wrote in dissent today: 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. For generations, the basic rule when it came to the separation of church and state was that the government could not fund any religious entities or programs. That wall developed some cracks over the years, with decisions holding that a school district had to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf student at a Catholic high school as part of a federal aid program, or that governments could choose to fund religious programs as part of an overall school tuition voucher scheme. In the latter case, the court reasoned that it was effectively the parents, not the government, choosing to fund these schools, and government’s purpose in having the voucher program was not the advancement of religion. Two years later, though, the court again recognized that there was “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, holding in a 7-2 decision that states could choose to not fund students pursuing devotional theology degrees as part of a neutral aid program, to avoid advancing religion. Today, the court went one step further, constraining the reach of that 7-2 precedent and instead holding that the State of Missouri is required to include religious schools in a state program which provides grants to nonprofits to allow them to resurface their playgrounds with recycled tires. Missouri’s objection was rooted in a state constitutional provision, passed in 1875 as part of a general anti-Catholic wave across the country, which stated that no money from the state treasury could go “directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” The chief justice wrote for the court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan in full; by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch for the most part (and get to used to hearing this: “though they would have gone further”), and Justice Breyer for separate reasons. In addition, the court announced today that they are taking up the case of whether Colorado can compel a bakery to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. Read more