Most would agree that their memories of childhood education involved a recess break at the school playground. The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center, a Missouri preschool and daycare center, provides this childhood memory at their own playground. However, in 2021, the Church was excluded from a state program of reimbursements for the cost of rubberizing the surface of playgrounds. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that administered the Playground Scrap Tire Surface Materials Grant Program had ranked the Church high in the grant process due to a number of factors including the poverty level of the surrounding area. Nevertheless, the grant was not awarded to the school because Missouri’s State Constitution forbade the government from spending money on any “church, sect, or denomination of religion.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) was contacted by the Church / Learning Center in December of 2011. By January 2013, a lawsuit was filed against the Director of the Missouri DNR, but the district judge ruled for the state and dismissed the case. This decision was then appealed by ADF to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit ruled to uphold the district court’s decision. Taking it another step further, ADF petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2015 to take the case. Finally, on June 26th of 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church.
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer came to the conclusion that churches and other faith-based organizations cannot be excluded from a secular government program simply due to their religious identity. The decision invoked numerous cases such as Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing. For in this case, a New Jersey statute that allowed reimbursements to parents of children being bussed by public transportation to and from public and Catholic schools was deemed constitutional. The state cannot exclude individuals of faith from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation because of their faith or lack of it.
The dissenting opinion emphasized the entanglement of church and state as the most worrisome part of the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believes in a strict separation of church and state. This would mean that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and give that money over to houses of worship.
I understand the argument that because the Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a private institution regarding religion, it should be funded through private dollars. However, this argument is weak when considering the neutrality of the Playground Scrap Tire Surface Materials Grant Program. I am in agreement with majority opinion.
Allowing for the Church to take part in the Grant Program passes all three prongs of the Lemon Test, especially the first in which “the statute must have a secular legislative purpose.” The secular purpose is the safety of children using the playground. Replacing the surface of the playground would provide a higher level of safety for the children at the center as well as all children in the community who use the playground after school hours and on weekends. It is important to note that children outside of those who attend the school have access. Secondly, “the principal or primary effect” of the grant “neither advances nor inhibits religion” because the Church and Learning Center would exist with or without the help of a government grant to renovate the playground. In no way is this State Program ranking a certain religion higher than another or ranking religion higher than non-religion. It is facially neutral to all schools who may need the resurfacing. Finally, the “statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion,” and it does not. This does not deal with the funding of religious texts or even anything inside the classroom. Just as the transportation in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing did not support parochial schools directly, the resurfacing of a playground is not directed towards religious schools.
In Wolman v. Walters, the Supreme Court held that giving the State of Ohio authorization to provide nonpublic school students with secular textbooks, standardized testing and scoring, diagnostic services, and therapeutic and remedial services is constitutional. Because the state would not be supplying private schools with religious instructional material or access to field trips, there is no advancement of religion occuring. This holding is equal to that of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Access to a proper school playground for preschoolers is equivalent to access to secular textbooks and resources. Aiding schools with an area for recreational time and socializing does not have the primary effect of aiding religion.
I agree that The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center should not be excluded from the state program of reimbursements. When comparing this case to Locke v. Davey, I found the key difference to be that the money provided by the state in this case is not directly going to funding these children's religious education. In Locke v. Davey, if theology was allowed as a major, state money would be directly helping a man pursue religious studies and a religious career path. In this case, however, the money is just helping to update their playground, a factor which in no way promotes or inhibits religion.
ReplyDeleteThis case represents another attempt by the state to avoid any possible entanglement in the church's affairs. Here in this case there is no direct benefit to the church's wellbeing for worship and the law seems to target religious schools unfairly because they are simply looking for the same thing as every other school that deems apply. This case shares similar traits to Everson and Zelman in which the court believed there were facially neutral attempts at funding resources but here they felt that the law wasn't facially neutral and unfairly discriminated against a secular entity of a religious organization.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I remember going to local playgrounds as a child that belonged to schools other than my own. Playgrounds should be made for all children, regardless of their religion. I also think the precedent that you pointed to in Everson v. Board of Education was particularly relevant. The majority opinion stated that state-paid policemen protect religious students not because they are religious but because they are students. I think that it is the same here, these are students regardless of their religious affiliations.
ReplyDeleteCreating a safe area for children has a secular purpose, even if it is on church grounds. Given grants are competitive for this program and Trinity Church qualified, they were in obvious need of some funding. Building a new playground does not entangle the State with the Church in any way. The funds do not advance religion, creating a new playground does not show any state endorsement of religion. To deny funding would be hostile towards religion and that precedent was set in Everson v. Board of Education.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this case in the sense that providing the grant for the Playground Scrap Tire Surface Materials does not promote religion in any way and is in fact secular in nature. Furthermore, providing this grant to the Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is not promoting one religion over another, or non religion over religion. It seems to be facially neutral and does not entangle the government with religion in anyway. I agree with the majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court , but my only concern is that of comparing this case to Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing. The Everson case was over reimbursing private school students for busing. I do not believe that the two can be compared so directly. While, I can see that perhaps the safety of a playground can be a compelling secular purpose, I do not think the enjoyment of recess and transportation to school can be directly compared. The latter is more of a necessity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with your stance on this matter for I do not believe that there is an extensive entanglement between the church and state for a playground, even if it is for a religious school. The Trinity Lutheran Church was rightfully entitled to a new rubberized surface for their playground on a need basis and a denial of this surface only creates hostility between the church and state. Regardless of whether or not taxpayers agree with the religious messages presented by the school during class hours, the secular intent of a playground surface is to keep the children safe and promote a healthy lifestyle of exercise; a matter that the state indisputably has interest in and should promote.
ReplyDelete