In a major victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today that states cannot exempt churches from benefiting from state programs solely because they are a church.
In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, the court ruled 7-2 that churches can’t be treated differently than other charitable organizations when it comes to being eligible for benefits supporting community services that aren’t explicitly religious.
Trinity Lutheran ran a preschool in Missouri, and the church applied for a state grant that offered partial reimbursement for rubberizing the playground surfaces to make it safer. According to the criteria laid out by the state of Missouri, the church was an ideal candidate for the grant—it was ranked fifth out of 44 institutions that applied for the grants. But according to Missouri’s state constitution, “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” (Some 37 states have similar prohibitions on aiding churches.) So-called “Blaine amendments” date back to the 19th century and have a history of being rooted in anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment.
The church’s legal team argued that since the making the playground safer was about public safety, not an explicitly religious matter, this was unfairly discriminatory. Particularly because attendance at the preschool was not limited to church members, and other kids in the community used the playground. “This religious exclusion wrongfully sends a message that some children are less worthy of protection simply because they enjoy recreation on a playground owned by a church,” observed David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-religious liberty legal group that represented the church.
During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the state taking a hard line on denying churches funds for public safety. Even liberal Elana Kagan asked the state of Missouri “Why can the State provide police protection or fire protection?” if they were otherwise drawing a bright line on not making churches eligible for public safety programs. Kagan was apparently unpersuaded by the answer to her question—she joined the court’s more conservative majority in ruling in favor of Trinity Lutheran.
Had the court ruled against Trinity Lutheran it could have had far reaching consequences, such as jeopardizing religiously affiliated colleges from being eligible for student loans. For now, the court has resoundingly affirmed that churches provide a great deal of public services going well beyond any explicitly religious mission and deserve to be treated like any other comparable charitable organizations in the public square.
