Trinity Lutheran Church V. Comer Case Study

Case Information: Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer will be argued in the Supreme Court on April, 19, 2017. The case deals with the First Amendment, freedom of religion, the 14thAmendment, Equal Protection Clause, and the Establishment Clause.
Background:
Trinity Lutheran Church is a church that has operated for 90 years in Columbia, Missouri. The church provides several services that include: foster care, volunteering, providing food for the less fortunate, helping fund local food bank, helping with building projects in its community, as well as running a community daycare center and preschool for children in the community, called the Learning Center. The Learning Center operates using an open admission policy and

Board of Education a New Jersey law gave finical compensations to families whose children who were driven on buses operated by the public transportation system. This was also given to families who kids attended Catholic schools. The Court found that this law did not violate the Establishment Clause because public services and protection for religious schools are separate from their religious function and does not violate the First Amendment. The law did not financially support religious programs directly. It was enacted as a "general program" to aid parents in their children’s transportation regardless of their denomination. Everson v. Board of Education is a prime example of the distinction between religious advancement and religious discrimination. The Court made a clear statement regarding religious groups receiving government funding, if the purpose of the funds is to aid a secular purpose, or involves a general program to promote the public welfare, then it is

The funding that occurred in Lemon and Locke went directly to religious purposes, so the State was right to not fund them. In the Trinity case, the funds are at least partially for secular use since the playground is open to the public after hours and admission to the school is open to anyone from the community. Despite that, Missouri argues that it is not discriminating by barring all religious groups from receiving any public funds even if they are used for partially secular purposes. In Luetkemeyer v. Kaufmann, 364 F.Supp. 376, 383–84 (W.D.Mo.1973), aff 'd,419 U.S. 888, 95 S.Ct. 167, 42 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974). which evaluated a similar Missouri provision in determining if the State could refuse to provide bussing services for parochial schools, the Court held that maintaining a wall between Church and State is a legitimate State interest sufficient to overcome an equal protection and free of religion argument. The State’s provision is constitutional under the Freedom of Religion Clause of the 1st Amendment because it does not discriminate between religious groups, since no group is eligible. The State is allowed to deny religious organizations funding from secular programs and benefits that are not widely and generally available to the public at large. The State only awarded 14 grants to carefully selected organizations, and the State had a rational basis for using religious