Quiz #77 -- Establishment Clause Offense & Neutral Government Programs

True or False: The Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer: True.  Here’s what the Supreme said in that regard three years ago:

 

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We have recognized a “ ‘play in the joints’ between what the Establishment Clause permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2019, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017) (quoting Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 718, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004)). Here, the parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is permissible under the Establishment Clause. Nor could they. We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. See, e.g., Locke, 540 U.S. at 719, 124 S.Ct. 1307; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). See also Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2019–2020 (noting the parties' agreement that the Establishment Clause was not violated by including churches in a playground resurfacing program).

 

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2254 (2020) (emphasis added)

 

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

 

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

 

Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where we delve into religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through engaging quiz-based discussions. In this particular installment, we'll be exploring quiz number 77 and discussing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision: Espinoza v. Montana, Department of Revenue.

The Espinoza case revolves around the parents of students attending a private Christian school who sued the Montana Department of Revenue. The Department had created a rule excluding religiously-affiliated private schools from a state-established scholarship program, arguing that it would otherwise constitute state aid to religion, which could violate the Establishment Clause. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court, thereby setting the stage for a significant constitutional debate.

In this episode, we especially focus on the central question of the quiz: Is the Establishment Clause offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs? This particular query draws on past court decisions such as the Trinity Lutheran case and examines the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

We then finish by delving into the implications of the Espinoza decision. The key takeaway posits that a neutral government program, regardless of its benefits to a religious organization, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Tune in to learn more about this important landmark decision that has implications for the boundaries of religious freedom and state aid.

As we wrap up this episode, we remind listeners that Religion Law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. If you have found this episode insightful, please share it and leave a review. Stay tuned for our continued exploration of the Espinoza decision in quiz number 78.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where you learn about
religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through a short question-and-answer format.
I'm your host, Michael Fielding.
Let's see how you do on today's quiz.
Welcome to another riveting edition of the Religion Law Quiz Podcast.

(00:26):
Today, we are doing quiz number 77, numero setenta siete.
Now, as I mentioned in quiz number 76, we are taking another dive or look at
the Supreme Court's 2020 decision, Espinoza v. Montana, Department of Revenue.
One of the things I did not do in the prior podcast was give just the basic facts.

(00:49):
And the facts in the Espinoza case are actually pretty simple.
What you had there is you had some parents of students that attended a private Christian school,
and the Montana Department of Revenue had created a rule that excluded religiously

(01:09):
affiliated schools, private schools,
from a scholarship program that had been established by the state.
Excuse me, that had been established by the state.
And the idea here of Montana was that we have this scholarship program,
but if you have kids attending a private religious school, and then you get

(01:33):
a scholarship that is essentially state aid to religion and would somehow violate
the Establishment Clause.
Well, the parents didn't like that. They wanted to be able to participate in
the program, so they filed a lawsuit.
The trial court granted a ruling in favor of the parents,

(01:55):
but then the Montana Supreme Court reversed and said that this program violated
the Montana Constitutions.
It had what they called a no-aid provision, which which prohibited aid to these
religiously affiliated schools.
So then the parents appealed to the United States Supreme Court saying,

(02:17):
hey, we should be able to participate.
And so that's the factual backdrop here. Can these students in these private
Christian schools participate in the state scholarship program?
All right. So with that framework in mind, we now look at today's quiz.
And today's quiz is a simple true or false question.

(02:40):
And the question is this, true or false? The Establishment Clause is not offended
when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs.
What do you think the answer is to that? Now, to give you a clue without directly answering that,
if you have been paying attention to past religion law quizzes,

(03:04):
We had the Trinity Lutheran decision,
which came out of Columbia, Missouri,
where you had the church down there qualified to get recycled or recycled tires
that would be used for playground equipment.
And Missouri said, nope, sorry, can't get it, your school, we can't give state aid to a school.

(03:26):
And it was appealed up to the United States Supreme Court.
And the United States Supreme Court said, the school qualifies in every way.
The only reason you are prohibiting the school from getting it is based on its religious character.
Therefore, that's improper under the Constitution, and there the school or the

(03:49):
Trinity Lutheran school was able to get the refurbished tires under the state program.
So with that backdrop, let's go back to our original question.
True or false, the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers
and organizations benefit from neutral government programs.
Well, the answer is true. And I'm going to give you a quote here from what the

(04:12):
Supreme Court said in the Espinoza decision.
The specific citation will be in the show notes to the podcast.
Here's the quote. The religion clauses of the First Amendment provide that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
We have recognized a play in the joints between what the Establishment Clause

(04:37):
permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels.
Here, the parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is permissible
under the Establishment Clause, nor could they.
We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious

(04:57):
observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs,
close quote. vote.
So the key takeaway here is that if you have a government program and it's neutral
on its face and it just happens to benefit a church,

(05:18):
the Establishment Clause is not violated.
And I gave on a prior podcast what I think is a really practical example of this.
And let's suppose that that you have a city street and there's a special ordinance
adopted that we're going to put sidewalks down the street and nice lighting

(05:39):
and it spruces up the neighborhood.
And because of the sprucing up, it actually helps increase or enhance property values.
Maybe along with the sidewalk, they'd probably put in new storm drainage as well.
Which actually may help alleviate flooding in the neighborhood.
And if it happens to be that there is a church that is along the road,

(05:59):
and the church then benefits because you have the sidewalk going in front of
it and helping with storm drainage runoff or stormwater control.
The fact that this government program that put the sidewalk in happens to benefit
the church does not offend the establishment class. And it makes common sense.

(06:21):
The government here is acting in just a broad blanket, what I'll call shotgun
manner, where they are putting a benefit, a program that's out there,
and it's neutral on its face.
And therefore, if it happens just to benefit an entity or an organization that
is religious, we're not going to violate the Establishment Clause.

(06:44):
All right, that does it for today's podcast.
We are going to continue on in quiz number 78, again, continuing to talk about
the Espinoza decision. Have a great day.
Thank you for listening to today's episode remember religion law quizzes are
for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal

(07:07):
advice if you have found this episode to be helpful please share it and leave
a review until we meet again keep being an influence for good.
Music.