Written by Don Byrd
[UPDATE 1/15/2016 – The Supreme Court granted cert and will decide the case later this year.]
Does a church have a constitutional right to use state funds to improve its playground? What if the state has an ongoing program in which it provides funds for resurfacing playgrounds? Finally, what if the state’s constitution explicitly states “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion”? (from Missouri Constitution, Article II, Section 7)
Faced with that layer of questions, the Director of Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources denied the request of Trinity Lutheran Church for funds to participate in the program, citing the constitutional provision barring such funding. The church filed suit, claiming that the decision violates its religious freedom rights under the U.S. Constitution. In a 2-1 decision last week, a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that “no aid to religion” provision in the Missouri Constitution and affirmed the dismissal of the church’s case.
Several state constitutions contain a provision, sometimes referred to as the “Blaine Amendment,” specifying that no public funds are to be used to aid a church or religious denomination. Such language maintains a solid wall of separation between church and state when it comes to government funding, perhaps stronger even than that provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Here, the 8th Circuit determined that Supreme Court precedent clearly affirms the right of states to provide that level of protection. The First Amendment may allow, but it does not require states to fund church repairs.
Here is an excerpt from the opinion:
Trinity Church requests injunctive relief compelling Missouri to provide grants directly to churches, funding that is prohibited by a provision of the Missouri Constitution that has been a bedrock principle of state law for nearly 150 years. . . . [T]he issue here is not what the state is constitutionally permitted to do, but whether the Free Exercise Clause [or] the Establishment Clause . . . compel Missouri to provide public grant money directly to a church, contravening a long-standing state constitutional provision that is not unique to Missouri.
No Supreme Court case . . . has granted such relief.
The majority opinion noted Trinity’s argument that withholding from churches a generally available public benefit burdens religion in a manner that violates the Free Exercise Clause, but concluded:
If the [U.S. Supreme] Court were to adopt this view . . . then Article I, § 7 of the Missouri Constitution could not be validly applied to deny church participation in a host of publicly-funded programs. That may be a logical constitutional leap in the direction the Court recently seems to be going, but it is a leap of great magnitude from the Court’s decisions . . . In our view, only the Supreme Court can make that leap.
If that really is the direction of the Supreme Court, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley may be a case worth watching, if the church appeals the 8th Circuit’s ruling.
