Federal Court Once Again Has to Slap Down Effort to Deny Public Funds for Religious Institutions in Violation of Precedent: Oh, When Will They Ever Learn?

Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey

​A recent federal court ruling in New Jersey finds, once again, in favor of the free exercise of religion, inspiring us to ask the question: Why are state and local governments so perversely keen to ignore the Constitution and governing precedents?
 
Morris County, New Jersey – like many jurisdictions – runs a historic preservation grant program. For 14 years (2003 – 2017), buildings of a religious nature were eligible for funding.
 
Then, in 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court found in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Morris County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders that the state constitution’s Religious Aid Clause “bars the use of taxpayer funds to repair and restore churches.”
 
At the same time, the court held that the rule did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution because, in their estimation, the then-recent case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer distinguished between religious status and religious use. In other words, the court said that government funding could go to a religious organization so long as the recipient was not using the money for religious purposes.
 
Since then, Supreme Court precedent has evolved quite a bit. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin, the Court flatly found that “a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”
 
That didn’t stop Morris County from denying Mendham Methodist Church and Zion Lutheran Church Long Valley historic preservation grants. Now, after the two churches brought suit, a federal court has ruled in their favor, citing (unsurprisingly) Espinoza and Carson.
 
In the opinion by Judge Evelyn Padin, which invokes similar controversies in other states, she eloquently makes the point that:
 
“Recent Supreme Court precedent, therefore, characterizes many states’ disentanglement of government and religion as a Faustian bargain: to gain public benefits, you must forgo your faith. But the bargain depends on the bargainer. So, too, could the calculus read: to benefit from the results of public funding, you must endorse a faith to which you do not belong.”
 
That faith, it is implied, may be of the secular variety. But Espinoza and Carson make this whole calculus surprisingly clear. You cannot discriminate or withhold public funds based on an organization’s religious character.
 
The only question that remains – will some states and local governments now follow the law?

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS