To what extent is it either required or ethically questionable to point out, if one is objecting to conclusion “a” above, to point out that any such doctrine would require “sovereign states” to pony money up to Moslem schools, including, say, madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia in order to teach various pernicious Wahabi doctrines? As Donald Trump might put it, I’m just asking, though, as with Trump, I’m confident that a lot of Evangelical Christians who will not be happy with an argument that their tax dollars have to go to fund Islamic schools.
sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case On first glance, this has the potential to be a huge case. Not only will it almost certainly test the limits of Locke v. Davey (and, perhaps, whether Locke even survives the departure of Rehnquist and O'Connor) on the Free Exercise side, but it also is the first SCOTUS case in 16 years -- since Mitchell v. Helms -- implicating whether and under what circumstances a state can offer selective, discretionary "direct funding" to a religious institution . . . indeed, to a church itself! Under O'Connor's controlling opinion in Mitchell, recall, there remain "special dangers associated with direct money grants to religious institutions," and the Court's "concern with direct monetary aid is based on more than just diversion. In fact, the most important reason for according special treatment to direct money grants is that this form of aid falls precariously close to the original object of the Establishment Clause's prohibition." It'd be quite something if the Court moved from the current view that such funding is constitutionally prohibited (e.g., Tilton, Nyquist, the SOC opinion in Mitchell) to the view that it's constitutionally required (i.e., that the state can't discriminate against the church as recipient of the direct aid); but in light of the composition of the current Court, that's a very real possibility. In theory, at least, all three dispositions are in play: i. Missouri must fund the church ii. Missouri can't fund the church iii. Missouri has discretion to go either way (which in this case would mean no funding, per the Missouri Constitution) If I had to guess, I'd say (ii) is the least likely outcome, even though that's been the governing law for many decades. On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Friedman, Howard M. <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu>> wrote: SCOTUS today granted cert in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley. Details at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/01/supreme-court-grants-review-in-missouri.html Howard Friedman _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
