http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TrinityLutheranPetitionersBrief.pdf
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> 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 >> 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.
