Supreme Court Watch: Public Funds and Religion
John Christie • March 17, 2020
Three years ago, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the First Amendment allows a state to deny public benefits to a religious organization in Trinity Lutheran Church v Comer. Trinity Lutheran operated a pre-school and day care center on the church’s grounds in Boone County, Mo. The church applied for a grant from a state program that used old tires destined for landfills by turning them into a safer pour-in-place surface for playgrounds. Eligible non-profit organizations that purchased these playground surfaces could receive a reimbursement grant from the state. However, the Trinity Lutheran was deemed ineligible for the grant from the state based upon a clause in the Missouri Constitution that said that “No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church . . ..”
In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a seven-justice majority held that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious observers against unequal treatment in the disbursement of public funds. “The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution, and cannot stand.” Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsberg, dissented, asserting that using public funds to pay for improvements to the facilities a church uses to practice and spread its religious views would cross the line drawn by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
However, although some of the language in the majority opinion would appear to have established a broad principle, the opinion expressly limited the holding in the case to discrimination based upon religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. “We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination,” said the Chief Justice. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, refused to join in the majority’s qualification because it suggested that only “playground resurfacing” cases, or only cases involving some association with children’s safety or health, were governed by the Court’s opinion. In his own separate concurring opinion, Justice Breyer cautioned that public benefits come “in many shapes and sizes” and declined to say whether “other kinds of public benefits” might be subject to the same anti-discrimination principle.
In the present term in a closely-watched case pending, the Court has another opportunity to consider the underlying issue in a different context in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In 2015, the Montana legislature established a program providing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $150 for individuals and businesses who donate to certain private scholarship organizations. Those scholarship organizations then used the donated money to provide scholarships for students who wanted to attend private schools — which, in Montana, are overwhelmingly religious. Shortly after the program was enacted, however, the Montana Department of Revenue announced that families could not use the scholarships at religious schools because Montana, like Missouri, has a “no-aid clause” in its constitution, prohibiting aid to “sectarian schools.”
Parents of students attending one of those private schools challenged the Department’s ruling in court, claiming that it unconstitutionally discriminated against them by excluding religious schools from the tax-credit program. Recognizing the clear conflict with the state’s “no-aid” provision, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire program, abolishing public tax-credit funding for all private schools in the state, whether religious or not.
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22. Several Justices appeared to have concluded that Trinity Lutheran broadly applied to prevent the state from withholding funds from religious schools even when used for a religious education purpose. Other justices distinguished Trinity Lutheran as having involved a “completely secular benefit” and raised the question of whether there was in fact any religious discrimination here at all, inasmuch as the Montana Supreme Court had ended all state funding of private schools whether religious or not. At least two Justices expressed concern about the broader implications of a ruling for the parents — specifically, whether it might negatively affect government funding for public schools.
As is often the case, by the end of the oral argument the result was difficult to predict. But because public funding of religious education is on the face of it far different than public funding of playground surfacing, the broad consensus achieved in Trinity Lutheran will not be likely in this case. The impact of the ultimate result may be much more significant. A decision is expected by the end of June.
John Christie
was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
