"People can debate to what extent this should matter, but I should note that the funding criteria in Trinity Lutheran seem to be pretty nondiscretionary as these things go."
FWIW, and as many of you know, I'm one who thinks it matters a great deal (see pp.22-25 of http://balkin.blogspot.com/olc.charitablechoice.pdf); and that, at least from the looks of the document to which Eugene linked, this is as strong a case as can be imagined on the "permissible" side of the line, since there appears to be virtually no room for government assessment of the relative value, or merits, of the institutions applying for the grants, or of the substance of what happens within them--the criteria appear to be entirely neutral and objective. I hope the Court stresses this aspect of the program. On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > People can debate to what extent this should matter, but I > should note that the funding criteria in Trinity Lutheran seem to be pretty > nondiscretionary as these things go, see > http://dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2425.pdf . Of course, all systems can be > enforced in discretionary ways (police protection and judicial enforcement > of legal rules are classic examples); but these seem to leave relatively > little wiggle room, especially for evaluation of religious or ideological > doctrine. > > > > Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:15 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case > > > > On first glance, this has the potential to be a huge case. Not only will > it almost certainly test the limits of *Locke v. Davey* (and, perhaps, > whether *Locke* even survives the departure of Rehnquist and O'Connor) on > the Free Exercise side, but it also is the first SCOTUS case in 16 years -- > since *Mitchell v. Helms *-- implicating whether and under what > circumstances a state can offer selective, discretionary "direct funding" > to a religious institution . . . indeed, to a church itself! > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
