Drawing a Line: Public Funds Aiding Religious Institutions

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer seems to have set the precedent for modern court cases, involving public funds going towards non-secular institutions. Trinity Lutheran Church was originally denied funding for resurfacing their playground because the playground was on church property, even though they were a qualified applicant. The case made it to the United States Supreme Court. Where it was held, a Church cannot be denied funding that is “generally applicable”, and could not be denied just because of the religious affiliation. How that precedent is interpreted can be dangerous, at times. It was used in the ruling for Council of Organizations and Others For Education About Parochiaid v. The State of Michigan. The Michigan Court of Claims denied funding for Parochial School to help aid the costs of complying with State health and safety mandates. They justified their holding of denying Parochial schools funding by claiming the statute did not disfavor any religion and it fell under the category of “neutrality”. Where in the Trinity case, it singled out religion for “disfavored treatment”. A “similar” case was decided by The New Jersey Supreme Court on April 18th, 2018. In 2002, Morris County granted four entities to apply for historic preservation funding. Those four entities include municipal governments within Morris County; Morris County government; charitable conservancies whose purpose includes historic preservation; and religious institution. All funding comes from a county property tax. From 2012 to 2015, 41.7% of the $11,120,370 in total grants were given to 12 churches. A majority of the churches claimed, “funds were needed to allow the church to offer religious services.” The money was used specifically to repair stained glass window, slate roofs, building towers and ventilation systems.  The Freedom From Religion Foundation and David Steketee sued Morris County on December 1, 2015. They claimed, the grants violate Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution, "nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right." They believed, providing any sort of public funding going directly towards advancing the practice of one’s religion to clearly violate the Constitution. C.J. Rabner offered the opinion of the court, he used the Religious Aid Clause of New’s Jersey’s State Constitution to justify his holding. He also claimed the grants violate Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution. Meaning, there should not be any exemption for “historic preservation”. He referenced how Locke v. Davey was a better comparison than Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The State of Washington did not allow taxpayer funds to go directly towards the training of clergy, they had an interest in keeping their anti-establishment clause, intact. Which was much different than Trinity Lutheran, they were denied funding because of their church status, not their intended uses of funds. In Morris County, public funds went towards Churches with the intent of furthering their religious practices. Therefore, they would not be denied, on the basis of being a Church rather, they should be denied because of the fund's intended uses. Thus, there is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause. For me, it was much tougher for me to formulate an opinion for this case compared to the “Trinity Lutheran” and “Michigan” cases. First, I thought, it was justified by the State to grant public funding to “places of worship” because they have a genuine interest in preserving historical sites. Whether it is preserving a church or government building.  The purpose would be considered neutral and the State should have the power to decide where the funds are allocated. Therefore, this case should be ruled the same as, Trinity. Then, after applying the Lemon Test, I realized these cases are vastly different. While I recognize there is a secular purpose in preserving historical architecture. The non-secular purpose of having the taxpayer money further the practice of one’s religion significantly outweighs its secular purpose. These are active Churches with active members. Providing funding enables such religions to further their practice; using the citizens of Morris County’s money to enable the practice of one’s religion, clearly violating the New Jersey’s State Constitution. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere; I do not believe the Trinity precedent can be used to justify this case. In the Trinity case, there was a clear secular purpose. It was to promote the safety of children in an impoverished area. They were being denied by the fact, they were religiously affiliated, not based on their intended use of funding. Using public funds to remodel a playground on church grounds is vastly different than using public funds to preserve the actual church. The fact it advances religion to such an extent, it enables churches to keep operating. With the use of public funds is enough for me to decide the holding is not in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.