Supreme Court sides with church in playground case

The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, that Missouri's denial of the church's application to have its playground resurfaced using state funds violated the Constitution by discriminating against a religious organization. By rejecting the application, the state violated the Church's free exercise of religion.

Shop Holy Cards

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious freedom, but the ruling is limited.

Highlights

By Marshall Connolly (CALIFORNIA NETWORK)
Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org)
6/26/2017 (6 years ago)

Published in Politics & Policy

Keywords: Supreme Court, church, Trinity Lutheran

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) -- The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program whereby it uses recycled rubber to resurface playgrounds. The resurfaced grounds are safer than asphalt and protects kids from injury when they fall. Trinity Lutheran Church applied to the program for its own playground and its application was denied because Trinity Lutheran Church is a religious organization.

The program ranked the church's application fifth out of 44 applications it received, but despite qualifying, it did not grant money from the state treasury. The program funded 14 other requests.

Chief Justice Roberts dealt with the matter in straightforward fashion. In reviewing similar cases, Roberts concluded that the state needs a very good reason to use religious identity to deny a benefit for which someone is otherwise eligible. The funding was denied simply because Trinity Lutheran was a church. There was no compelling reason why the state should deny the funds. The state would not have been seen as endorsing the church or promoting it.

The decision was supported by all the justices except Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor who wrote an opinion against it. According to the liberal justices, the decision breaks the barrier between the church and state, and requires the state provide funds to the church.

Justice Stephen Beyer, although he ruled in favor of the church cautioned against concluding this means churches can expect other benefits from the states.

Roberts acknowledged that the stakes in the case seemed low.

What does this decision mean for the rest of the nation? It may not mean much, as Roberts and Beyer pointed out. Or, it could mean that churches will now be able to access a host of state programs.

The implications of the case are unclear, and it will require future decisions to fully appreciate the impact of the ruling.