Three years ago, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia sued the director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources after the department denied its application for a grant to resurface its daycare playground. That may sound like a minor dispute. But, Trinity’s lawsuit, which is now before the Supreme Court, is not just about a playground – it’s about the fundamental constitutional values that are undermined by Missouri’s policy of systematic anti-religious discrimination.
A wide array of organizations recently stepped forward to urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Trinity. If the Court heeds their advice, it can send a strong message that government – federal, state, and local – must treat all Americans fairly, regardless of their beliefs.
Here’s how the case started. The Missouri Scrap Tire Grant Program awards grants to nonprofit organizations to resurface playgrounds with materials made from recycled tires, benefiting the environment and making playgrounds safer for children. Trinity operates a pre-school education and daycare center, which has a playground used by the center’s students and other neighborhood children. Trinity applied for a grant to replace the playground’s pea gravel and grass surface with a safer rubber surface. Although the application met all of the program’s criteria, the Department of Natural Resources denied it for one simple reason – Trinity is a religious organization.
The department was following a provision in the Missouri Constitution decreeing that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” Trinity sued, arguing that the state’s anti-religious discrimination violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and trumps anything in the Missouri Constitution.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled against Trinity, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a 2-1 decision. But, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trinity’s case and it will have the last word.
In the days leading up to an April 21 filing deadline, 26 friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Trinity were filed with the Court. A diverse array of religious and secular organizations weighed in on Trinity’s behalf. One brief was filed by eighteen states and another was filed by nine U.S. senators and 25 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The wide-ranging support for Trinity’s suit isn’t surprising. It’s really a matter of common-sense fairness. Why should a state resurfacing grant program treat applications differently based on the religious affiliation of a playground’s owner? The environmental and safety needs that the program is intended to address are just as pressing for playgrounds owned by religious organizations as for those owned by secular nonprofits.
Missouri’s primary justification for its policy is that it wants to avoid “endorsing” religion. But, the government doesn’t endorse religion by offering grants to religious organizations on the same terms as other nonprofits. Instead, the government opposes religion when it arbitrarily fences religious organizations out of a program offered to other nonprofits. Missouri’s argument has no clear stopping point. Does a state endorse religion by providing religious organizations with police and fire protection? And, could it withhold those services to avoid endorsing religion?
The stakes in this case are not limited to a single state. Colorado’s state constitution includes a provision similar to Missouri’s. And, other states may decide to discriminate against religious organizations if the Supreme Court gives them a green light.
The Court will hear the case in the fall and may hand down a decision early next year. All Americans, religious and secular, should hope that the Court strikes down Missouri’s anti-religious discrimination.
