Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)

argument 15-577

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the constitutional issue at the heart of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case fifteen five seventy seven Trinity Lutheran Church versus Comer. Mr Courtman.

Scott G. Courtman 0:10

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice. I may it please the court. The state of Missouri has excluded the Learning Center from a recycling programme that provides a safer playground for children, solely because the preschool is operated by a church rather than a secular not for profit. The state has made several important concessions in this case. Number one, that the policy in this case is not facially neutral, and number two, that based on their religious character, churches are not eligible for the benefit here. This admitted d discrimination against religion violates this Court's free exercise principles. First, as stated in McDaniel and Smith, the free exercise clause prevents the government from imposing special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, and forcing a choice between the exercise of religion and receiving either a government benefit, right, or privilege.

Samuel A. Alito 1:01

You mean that there's no serious risk of an establishment violation. That's off the table. Yes. Are there error instances in which status religious status can be used uh to deny r religions or religious believers. benefits from the state. Or are you saying that is that absent an establishment clause problem? The status Can never be The bas religious status can never be the basis for a governmental action or governmental ordinance or governmental status.

Scott G. Courtman 1:35

I I'm not sure that it can be. I can't think of a specific example. And the and the reason I say that is the question is, is why would someone's religious status matter in the first place to receiving a government benefit? And that's exactly

Elena Kagan 1:48

Um I guess rather long ago now. In the Everson case was Back in nineteen forty seven, this court said in no uncertain terms What the frameworks didn't want was tax money. imposed to pay for. building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson a passe?

Scott G. Courtman 2:20

I don't think it does. Um Everson also said that we have to be careful in not establishing a church, not to deprive religious people or organizations of general government benefits. And so I think that's the key here. I think there's a difference between funding of religious activities and funding secular activities of a religious organization.

Elena Kagan 2:37

But how is the building separate from the religious uh exercise therein. Uh I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church. And in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play. and conducted in a religiously valuable way. I think that's the materials that you're ad that the church is advertising. How do you separate out? its secular function from its religious function.

Scott G. Courtman 3:11

I think the way the court always has. Uh and the answer to that is for example, even though the motivation behind operating this preschool is a religious motivation, doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious.

Elena Kagan 3:23

Well how about if the school does a prayer before the children start playing? How about if it chooses on a sunny day to do its religious instruction outside? How does the state No. Or how can it control without then controlling on the po on the basis of belief and viewpoint. How could they control against that?

Scott G. Courtman 3:49

Sure. It's the same way it has uh in all the case law, and that is is we have to look at where is the money going to uh what's it going to fund. And in this particular instance, for example, if you look at the the this court's case law uh going back from Everson and all the way forward, it always said, Is the money going to a religious activity or is it going to a secular activity? This Court has approved funding to religious schools, just not for religious activities. So

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:11

do you think, Mr Courtman, suppose there was an application And uh uh from a uh a church that used its playground for religious activities, had prayer services there, for example. Could the state in your view uh deny the money on that ground, or at least would you think that that was a significantly different case?