Religion Law Quiz #86

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Catholic Social Services urged the Supreme Court to overrule Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).  As you may recall, “Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.”  Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1876 (2021). But despite the urging the Supreme Court did not overrule Smith.  Why not? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: Because the City of Philadelphia had burdened the exercise of religion through its policies that were not neutral and generally applicable.  Here’s what the Supreme Court specifically said:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable. 494 U.S. at 878–882, 110 S.Ct. 1595. CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so, see post, pp. 1883 – 1884 (opinion of ALITO, J.); post, p. 1926 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531–532, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993).

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1876–77 (2021)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, we delve into a significant Supreme Court decision and explore the intersection of religious freedom rights with LGBTQ non-discrimination policies. We have previously discussed the 2021 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case and its impacts, and this episode will share further insights.

Recall, the Catholic charity involved in the case believed in the sacred union of marriage between a man and a woman. Consequently, it would not place a foster child with a gay or lesbian couple or a cohabiting heterosexual couple. Today, we probe why the Supreme Court did not overrule the 1990 decision despite pressures, taking a close look at the City of Philadelphia's non-neutral and generally applicable policies.

Join the host, Michael Fielding, as he breaks down this complex legal decision into understandable terms. Be ready to answer some thought-provoking questions as we navigate the complexities of religious freedom and non-discrimination policies. This episode is an excellent resource for those interested in legal affairs, religion rights, and the LGBTQ community rights.

This episode is not just educational but thought-provoking, intended to shed light on some aspects of our legal system and society. Please share this episode if you find it enlightening, and leave a review. Together, we can influence for good.

The issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1874 (2021) was whether the “the actions of Philadelphia violate the First Amendment.”  By way of background, “Catholic Social Services [“CSS”] is a foster care agency in Philadelphia. The City stopped referring children to CSS upon discovering that the agency would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents due to its religious beliefs about marriage. The City will renew its foster care contract with CSS only if the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples.”  Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1874 (2021). 

When we hear of legal battles such as this we tend to make snap pre-judgments about one side or the other before considering all the facts.  With that in mind, let’s see how you do on this series of True/False questions about the facts of the Fulton case. 

1 – True or False: CSS would not certify an unmarried heterosexual couple for adoption.

2 – True or False: CSS would not certify a married homosexual couple for adoption.

3 – True or False: CSS would not object to certifying a gay or lesbian person who is single.

4 – True or False: If a same-sex couple sought certification from CSS then CSS would refer the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in Philadelphia that would certify same-sex couples. 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: The response to all four questions is “True”.  Here’s how the Supreme Court articulated the facts:

The religious views of CSS inform its work in this system. CSS believes that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Because the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married couples. CSS does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents or to placing gay and lesbian children. No same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS. If one did, CSS would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in the City, all of which currently certify same-sex couples. For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (2021)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 our host, Michael Fielding, shares insights on religious freedom and religion law-related topics through a short Q&A format. Today's episode dives into the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The focus is on introducing and detailing the key facts of the case.

In this 85th Religion Law Quiz, we first take a closer look at Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster care agency in Philadelphia. The city stopped referring children to CSS upon discovering that the agency would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents due to religious beliefs about marriage. We also unravel what CSS would do or not do regarding foster care certifications.

The host then proposes four true-or-false questions to test listeners' knowledge about the facts in the Fulton case. By answering these questions, listeners gain a better understanding of this complex case that battles same-sex certification and religious freedom.

Importantly, this episode summarises the supreme court's perspective on CSS's actions based on religious views regarding marriage and the certification process for prospective foster families. This pivotal groundwork set in this episode will enable listeners to follow along in upcoming quizzes where we will be deep-diving into legal principles outlined in the Fulton decision.

Remember, the Religion Law Quiz series is for educational purposes only and should not be used as legal advice. Share this episode and leave a review if you find it helpful. Until the next episode, keep questioning and exploring religious laws and their implications.

Neither Ronnie nor Janet are attorneys but they are keenly interested about federal law regarding religion.  Where can Ronnie or Janet go if they want to find quick helpful resources about federal religion law? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: One good place to start is at the Department of Justice’s publications page found at https://www.justice.gov/crt/publications which has several helpful publications on the following topics:

Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty (near the bottom of the page)

Implementation Memo for Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty

Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace

Combating Religious Discrimination Today: Final Report

Report on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

          September 2020

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast. Hosted by Michael Fielding, this episode presents Religion Law Quiz number 84, aimed at educating listeners about identifying credible online resources related to federal religion law.

In a succinct, hypothetical scenario, Michael introduces two individuals, Ronnie and Janet, who are seeking helpful resources about federal religion law on the internet. The answer revealed might surprise you as Michael directs you to the unassuming yet informative gems found in the Department of Justice's publications page.

Housed on the page are numerous valuable publications on various matters involving religion law. Noteworthy titles include the Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty, Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, and the report on the 20th anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

These resources not only provide a quick summary and high-level overview of the current state of the law but also prove helpful for anyone eager to deepen their understanding or provide a quick primer on religion law.

Remember, these religion law quizzes are decidedly enlightening but do not substitute legal advice. After all, knowledge is power, and sharing it only multiplies its effect. So, if you find this episode constructive, please share it and spread the word. Stay tuned for more insightful quizzes, and until then, keep being an influence for good.

Religion Law Quiz ## 82 and 83 are closely related.  As you’ll recall, in Religion Law Quiz $82 we learned that the Montana Supreme Court erred in its analysis in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue by applying state law first instead of federal law.  Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the Supremacy Clause.  In very succinct terms, how does the Supremacy Clause apply to State Court judges? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. 

The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. “[T]his Clause creates a rule of decision” directing state courts that they “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal law[ ].” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 324, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015). Given the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the application of the no-aid provision here, the Montana Supreme Court should have “disregard[ed]” the no-aid provision and decided this case “conformably to the [C]onstitution” of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). That “supreme law of the land” condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. Id., at 180. They are “member[s] of the community too,” and their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odious to our Constitution” and “cannot stand.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2023, 2025.

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262–63 (2020)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. I'm your host, Michael Fielding, and today, we discuss the significant implications of the Supremacy Clause on state law and state court judges. Following our persistent exploration of the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue decision, we delve into how the Supremacy Clause works in practice.

We dive into a real-life example, with a visit to the Missouri State Capitol, to help illustrate the point, understanding the critical role states play in governance and how significantly state decisions can impact our daily lives. Yet, despite the importance of state laws and jurisdictions, the U.S. Constitution holds the ultimate power, defining the bearings for state court judges on how to approach potentially conflicting state laws.

Quoting the Supreme Court's words, we explain how state court judges must prioritize and adhere to what the U.S. constitution states even if it conflicts with state laws. This principle of a higher ruling over a lower law is fundamental to our understanding of the constitution and governance.

Get ready for a sneak peek into our forthcoming episode, where we're going to delve into Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a landmark Supreme Court decision. Don't forget: our religion law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. Share this episode if you find it useful, and leave a review to let us know how we're doing. Until our next discussion, keep being an influence for good.

Religion Law Quizzes #82 and #83 are closely related and they (particularly Religion Law Quiz #83) highlight some really important foundational legal principles in federalism form of government.  So, with that in mind, let’s see how you do. 

In Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, the Montana Supreme Court had entirely invalidated a scholarship program because the Montana Supreme Court believed it violated the Constitution’s “no-aid” provision which prohibited aid to religious affiliated schools.  On appeal to the Supreme Court the Montana Department of Revenue argued that there was no Free Exercise violation because the program had been wholly eliminated by the Montana Supreme Court.  But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument.  Why did the Supreme Court rule that the Free Exercise Clause had been violated when the Montana Supreme Court had wholly voided the scholarship program? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: In a nutshell, the Montana Supreme Court erred by first applying state law rather than federal law.  But even that short anecdotal answer misses some important nuances.  Please read the following four (4) paragraphs from the Supreme Court’s decision. 

The Department argues that, at the end of the day, there is no free exercise violation here because the Montana Supreme Court ultimately eliminated the scholarship program altogether. According to the Department, now that there is no program, religious schools and adherents cannot complain that they are excluded from any generally available benefit.

Two dissenters agree. Justice GINSBURG reports that the State of Montana simply chose to “put all private school parents in the same boat” by invalidating the scholarship program, post, at 2281, and Justice SOTOMAYOR describes the decision below as resting on state law grounds having nothing to do with the federal Free Exercise Clause, see post, at 2292, 2294 – 2295.

The descriptions are not accurate. The Montana Legislature created the scholarship program; the Legislature never chose to end it, for policy or other reasons. The program was eliminated by a court, and not based on some innocuous principle of state law. Rather, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program pursuant to a state law provision that expressly discriminates on the basis of religious status. The Court applied that provision to hold that religious schools were barred from participating in the program. Then, seeing no other “mechanism” to make absolutely sure that religious schools received no aid, the court chose to invalidate the entire program. 393 Mont. at 466–468, 435 P.3d at 613–614.

The final step in this line of reasoning eliminated the program, to the detriment of religious and non-religious schools alike. But the Court's error of federal law occurred at the beginning. When the Court was called upon to apply a state law no-aid provision to exclude religious schools from the program, it was obligated by the Federal Constitution to reject the invitation. Had the Court recognized that this was, indeed, “one of those cases” in which application of the no-aid provision “would violate the Free Exercise Clause,”id., at 468, 435 P.3d at 614, the Court would not have proceeded to find a violation of that provision. And, in the absence of such a state law violation, the Court would have had no basis for terminating the program. Because the elimination of the program flowed directly from the Montana Supreme Court's failure to follow the dictates of federal law, it cannot be defended as a neutral policy decision, or as resting on adequate and independent state law grounds.

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2261–62 (2020)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 a fascinating episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, your host, Michael Fielding delves deep into a critical religious freedom case - Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue. This episode not only discusses this case meticulously but also covers the intricacies of the legal principles involved and the impact it has on the federalism form of the government.

The discussion begins with a recap of the case where the Montana Supreme Court had entirely invalidated a scholarship program, which was argued at the United States Supreme Court. The episode seeks answers to why the free exercise clause had been violated when Montana Supreme Court had utterly voided the scholarship program. It is a detailed exploration of the case that significantly contributes to the binding legal principles of religious freedom.

Fielding further highlights the importance of making decisions based on the higher law - the federal constitution in this case, rather than starting the analysis with a lower law. It sheds light on how the application of the correct law is critical in deciding such important matters, thus giving listeners a closer look into the underlying legal principles in the precedent-setting ruling.

The episode closes with a promise of further analysis in the next episode, making it a part of a closely related series. The episode serves as a comprehensive legal guide, with essential legal theories presented in an understandable and exciting format. If you're interested in learning more about religious law and foundational legal principles, you sure don't want to miss this episode!

A state passes a law which, in the view of the state, protects the religious liberty of taxpayers by ensuring that their taxes are not directed to religious organizations (because the law specifically prohibits any religious institution from receiving state aid), and the law safeguards the freedom of religious organizations by keeping the government out of their operations.  Does the law pass constitutional muster? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer:  No.  As you can tell from the past few Religion Law Quizzes we have been focusing on the Supreme Court’s 2020 Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue decision.  It is important to remember that the Supreme Court invalidated the law because it specifically discriminated on the basis of religion.  The State of Montana sought to justify its position by asserting: “that the no-aid provision actually promotes religious freedom. In the Department's view, the no-aid provision protects the religious liberty of taxpayers by ensuring that their taxes are not directed to religious organizations, and it safeguards the freedom of religious organizations by keeping the government out of their operations.”  Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020).  But the Supreme Court rejected this position stating:

An infringement of First Amendment rights, however, cannot be justified by a State's alternative view that the infringement advances religious liberty. Our federal system prizes state experimentation, but not “state experimentation in the suppression of free speech,” and the same goes for the free exercise of religion. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000).

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260–61 (2020)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast hosted by Michael Fielding. This episode is particularly interesting as it dives deep into the interface between state laws and religious liberty. A quiz format makes up a significant portion of this episode, provoking thought and promoting engagement for the listeners.

The key discussion revolves around a hypothetical law that, in essence, prohibits aid to religious institutions to prevent tax money from being directed towards them. The law's rationale is to preserve the religious liberty of taxpayers while also protecting the autonomy of religious organizations by keeping the state out of their affairs. The episode delves into whether such a law passes constitutional muster.

The episode also reiterates the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinosa versus Montana Department of Revenue decision as an example. The Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it discriminates based on religion.

Michael Fielding provides a fascinating discussion on the practical implications of this decision, touching on the concepts of status-based discrimination, state experimentation, and the importance of the First Amendment. This episode not only imparts knowledge but also encourages listeners to think critically about the intersection of religion, law, and constitutional rights.

The episode concludes with an announcement of the upcoming quizzes and a plea to listeners to share and review the episode if they find it helpful. A must-listen for anyone interested in religion law and the freedom of religion.

True or False: The protections of the Free Exercise Clause depend on a judgment-by-judgment analysis regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests?

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: False.  Here’s what the Supreme Court said in this regard three years ago: “The protections of the Free Exercise Clause do not depend on a ‘judgment-by-judgment analysis’ regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (emphasis added).

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding. In episode 80, we delve deep into the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue ruling, which challenged the exclusion of students attending religious private schools from a general state scholarship program. Through an engaging quiz format, listeners can test their understanding of this landmark case.

We scrutinize an interesting aspect of the decision: the supposed dependence of free exercise clause protections on a judgment-by-judgment analysis, against hate fuelled by ill-defined interests. Will you agree with the majority of listeners who discern that something doesn't quite fit with that assertion? Participate in our review of the Supreme Court's precise words and their implications.

As part of the discussion, we address the issues that case-by-case determinations present for litigants and their attorneys. How does an undefined interest or an ambiguous ruling affect a client's case? As a legal expert, how do you deal with such uncertainty? We delve into the benefits of an objective versus a subjective analysis.

Join us in this exploration of a key ruling that informs our understanding of the free exercise clause and its application to religious schools. Enjoy our fun quiz format that is as educational as it is challenging. Remember, our discussions are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be used as legal advice. Please share this episode, leave a review, and continue to be an influence for good. We look forward to welcoming you to our next Religion Law Quiz.

Want to learn more? Find us on your preferred podcast platform and tune in to the next Religion Law Podcast episode.

As attorneys we talk about doing pro bono work.  But guess what?  The universe doesn’t revolve around us. <<>>  Non-attorneys can also play an important role.  How can non-attorneys help with pro bono work?

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer:  Here is a list of possible things non-attorneys can do to help promote pro bono work:  

—Educate yourself regarding how common legal problems are resolved.

—Be a leader – Challenge & organize attorneys in your church or organization to become competent in an area of law and then serve others. 

—Create/sponsor pro bono clinics

—Give rides to and from court

—Refer people to existing pro bono programs

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 the 79th episode of the Religion Law Podcast, your go-to place for learning about religious freedom and other law-related matters. In this episode, we steer away from discussing Supreme Court decisions to focus on something equally valuable – the world of pro bono work, a typically attorney-dominated field. However, host Michael Fielding asserts that it is not only attorneys who can have a significant impact; he encourages non-lawyers to play a vital role in fostering and promoting pro bono legal work.

This episode urges listeners, especially non-attorneys, to consider various ways they can contribute to pro bono work. For instance, they could educate themselves on common legal problems, organize attorneys in their community for competence in specific legal areas, help establish pro bono clinics, offer transportation to and from court, and spread awareness about existing pro bono programs. It emphasizes that anyone, regardless of their profession, can facilitate access to legal assistance those in need.

While this episode is relatively short, it effectively plants seeds of thought on how non-attorneys can support pro bono work. Sticking true to its question-answer format, it leaves listeners with a thought-provoking query about what they might do when they come across someone in need of pro bono legal help. Ultimately, no matter what your line of expertise is, this episode demonstrates how you are capable of making a difference in the sphere of legal aid.

After this brief yet impactful exploration, the podcast will continue its analysis of the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case in the imminent 80th quiz. Join us then for more insightful discussions on religion and law.

In Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), the Montana Department of Revenue sought to distinguish that case from the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran decision a few years earlier by arguing that “Trinity Lutheran does not govern here because the no-aid provision applies not because of the religious character of the recipients, but because of how the funds would be used—for ‘religious education.’”  Id. at 2255.  But the Supreme Court rejected that argument.  Why did it reject that argument? 

(Scroll down for the answer)

Answer: The reason is because the Espinoza case “turns expressly on religious status and not religious use.”  Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256 (2020) (emphasis added).  The Supreme Court went on to note that “Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.”  Id. 

Here is a bit more extensive quote from the decision to help put it more in perspective:

This case also turns expressly on religious status and not religious use. The Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision solely by reference to religious status. The Court repeatedly explained that the no-aid provision bars aid to “schools controlled in whole or in part by churches,” “sectarian schools,” and “religiously-affiliated schools.” 393 Mont. at 463–467, 435 P.3d at 611–613. Applying this provision to the scholarship program, the Montana Supreme Court noted that most of the private schools that would benefit from the program were “religiously affiliated” and “controlled by churches,” and the Court ultimately concluded that the scholarship program ran afoul of the Montana Constitution by aiding “schools controlled by churches.” Id., at 466–467, 435 P.3d at 613–614. The Montana Constitution discriminates based on religious status just like the Missouri policy in Trinity Lutheran, which excluded organizations “owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity.” 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2017.

The Department points to some language in the decision below indicating that the no-aid provision has the goal or effect of ensuring that government aid does not end up being used for “sectarian education” or “religious education.” 393 Mont. at 460, 466–467, 435 P.3d at 609, 613–614. The Department also contrasts what it characterizes as the “completely non-religious” benefit of playground resurfacing in Trinity Lutheran with the unrestricted tuition aid at issue here. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. General school aid, the Department stresses, could be used for religious ends by some recipients, particularly schools that believe faith should “permeate[ ]” everything they do. Brief for Respondents 39 (quoting State ex rel. Chambers v. School Dist. No. 10, 155 Mont. 422, 438, 472 P.2d 1013, 1021 (1970)). See also post, at 2285, 2288 (BREYER, J., dissenting).

Regardless, those considerations were not the Montana Supreme Court's basis for applying the no-aid provision to exclude religious schools; that hinged solely on religious status. Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2020)

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are 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 insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where host Michael Fielding sheds light on religious freedoms and other religion law-related topics. Diving into The Supreme Court's ruling on religious bias, this episode centers around episode number 78, where a law case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, becomes the primary subject of discussion.

Detailed in the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case, the Montana Department of Revenue had ruled that students who partake in private religious-affiliated schools are ineligible to participate in state scholarship programs. The intention behind it being that it would not be appropriate for state dollars, distributed as scholarships, to be given to students attending private religious schools. This, of course, was challenged by a private Christian school.

Taking context from a few years earlier, the Supreme Court’s decision on Trinity Lutheran was recalled, and to defend their stance, Montana had to differentiate the Espinoza scenario from the Trinity Lutheran case. Their basis for contrast was, stated in quote: "Trinity Lutheran does not govern here because the no-aid provision applies not because of the religious character of the recipients, but because of how the funds would be used for religious education." The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument.

Fielding delves into the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining how the Espinoza case turned expressly on religious status and not religious use. He highlights the Supreme Court's strong condemnation of status-based discrimination, and how they view it as inconsistent with the Constitution, in any circumstance where a generally applicable government program is in place.

Join us in this significant exploration of the Supreme Court's stance against religion-based discrimination, their rationale, and its implications on a larger scale. Remember, these law discussions aim at enhancing your understanding of legal scenarios related to religious freedoms and are not intended for direct legal implementation. Share this episode, leave a review, and stay tuned for more engaging discussions, till we meet again!

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.