Blog Post 3.2: SCOTUS 2020
1. What issue is at the center of both the Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza cases?
Both Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza involve state constitutional provisions that prohibited those states from spending money to “aid” churches and other religious institutions.
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in Espinoza — parents who wish to keep their children in a private, Christian school — push a radical theory of the government’s obligations to religious institutions in their brief to the Supreme Court.
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
According to US Census data, states spend an average of $11,392 per year on each public school student.
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
“Denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court in Trinity Lutheran.
6. Because of the current makeup of the court, how do the authors predict that the Court will settle the Espinoza case?
Given Trinity Lutheran’s forceful language, it may seem odd that Espinoza needs to be heard by the Supreme Court at all. The two cases present nearly identical legal questions. So if Trinity Lutheran came down in favor of subsidies for religious schools, so too should Espinoza.
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
The Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee (1982) that, “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
9. How did the Trump Administration expand the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
It is probably inevitable that, one way or another, the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik, and Gorsuch, who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016, is a staunch conservative in religion cases.
Both Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza involve state constitutional provisions that prohibited those states from spending money to “aid” churches and other religious institutions.
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
As Justice Elena Kagan noted during oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran, the Missouri constitutional provision at issue in that case might be read to prohibit the state from providing “police protection or fire protection” to churches. That is, if a church caught ablaze, the fire department would be required to let it burn.
3. What choice do the plaintiffs argue that these bans force on students?Lawyers for the plaintiffs in Espinoza — parents who wish to keep their children in a private, Christian school — push a radical theory of the government’s obligations to religious institutions in their brief to the Supreme Court.
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
According to US Census data, states spend an average of $11,392 per year on each public school student.
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
“Denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court in Trinity Lutheran.
6. Because of the current makeup of the court, how do the authors predict that the Court will settle the Espinoza case?
Given Trinity Lutheran’s forceful language, it may seem odd that Espinoza needs to be heard by the Supreme Court at all. The two cases present nearly identical legal questions. So if Trinity Lutheran came down in favor of subsidies for religious schools, so too should Espinoza.
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
The core question in the Pennsylvania cases, however, is not whether the Constitution gives such religious objectors a right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. Rather, it’s whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans.
8. What court precedent was established in the 1982 case US v Lee?The Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee (1982) that, “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
9. How did the Trump Administration expand the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
The Trump administration decided to act on its own to give religious objectors a broad exemption from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. In May 2017, Trump issued an executive order instructing his administration to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.”
10. How do Trump's additions to the Court help predict the outcome of these cases?It is probably inevitable that, one way or another, the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik, and Gorsuch, who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016, is a staunch conservative in religion cases.
Comments
Post a Comment