The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground project because of a provision that prohibits state funding for religious entities.
The ruling was 7-2.
The case, one of the most closely watched of the term, pitted two parts of the First Amendment against one another – freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
The dispute involved Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., and the state of Missouri.
In 2012, the state launched an initiative to encourage schools to use recycled tires to produce softer playground surfaces. Trinity, which runs a preschool, was denied a state grant to participate in the program -- and lawyers for Trinity argued the state discriminated against the school based on religion.
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed.
“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 all the same, and cannot stand,” Roberts wrote.
During oral arguments in April, Justice Elana Kagan also questioned the church's exclusion.
"You're denying one set of actors from competing [for the grant money] because of religion," Kagan said. She called it a "clear burden on a constitutional right."
Supreme Court rules for Missouri church in dispute over public funding access
The ruling was 7-2.
The case, one of the most closely watched of the term, pitted two parts of the First Amendment against one another – freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
The dispute involved Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., and the state of Missouri.
In 2012, the state launched an initiative to encourage schools to use recycled tires to produce softer playground surfaces. Trinity, which runs a preschool, was denied a state grant to participate in the program -- and lawyers for Trinity argued the state discriminated against the school based on religion.
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed.
“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 all the same, and cannot stand,” Roberts wrote.
During oral arguments in April, Justice Elana Kagan also questioned the church's exclusion.
"You're denying one set of actors from competing [for the grant money] because of religion," Kagan said. She called it a "clear burden on a constitutional right."
Supreme Court rules for Missouri church in dispute over public funding access
