Religious Equality in Historic Preservation Funding: Insights from Morris County v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

Introduction

The case of Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, et al. v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, et al. reached the United States Supreme Court in 2019, presenting a significant question regarding the intersection of religious equality and governmental funding for historic preservation. This case involves Morris County, New Jersey, which administered a historic preservation fund aimed at conserving local buildings, including religious structures such as synagogues, temples, churches, and mosques. However, following a recent interpretation by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Morris County was prohibited from awarding grants to preserve religious buildings, prompting a constitutional challenge.

The primary issue under scrutiny was whether New Jersey's exclusion of religious buildings from the historic preservation program constituted unconstitutional discrimination against religion, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision, opted to deny certiorari, thereby upholding the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling without providing a definitive resolution to the constitutional question at hand.

Summary of the Judgment

In the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, addressed the petitions challenging the exclusion of religious buildings from Morris County's historic preservation grants. The court acknowledged the serious tension between the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision and the Supreme Court’s established precedents on religious equality.

Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that governmental discrimination against religion typically violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, referencing key precedents such as McDANIEL v. PATY, GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, and Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. The Justice highlighted that excluding religious organizations from state grants solely based on their religious status could be deemed unconstitutional under existing jurisprudence.

Despite these assertions, the Supreme Court declined to review the lower court's decision, citing two main reasons: unclear factual details regarding the scope of Morris County's program and the nascent state of post-Trinity Lutheran jurisprudence concerning the exclusion of religious organizations from general historic preservation grants programs. Consequently, the Supreme Court underscored that while the issue remains contentious, it was not prepared to render a definitive ruling at that time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal Supreme Court cases that establish the framework for religious equality and non-discrimination:

McDANIEL v. PATY (1978): Affirmed that the government cannot use religion as a basis for classification in granting privileges or benefits.
LARSON v. VALENTE (1982): Reinforced that the government may not discriminate against religious organizations or denominations.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993): Established that laws targeting religious practices specifically are unconstitutional.
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (1990): Clarified that imposing special disabilities based on religious status is prohibited.
GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL (2001): Held that excluding religious organizations from generally available public programs violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017): Ruled that excluding religious institutions from a public benefit solely based on their religious status is unconstitutional.

These precedents collectively underscore the principle that governmental actions cannot discriminate against religious entities, ensuring the protection of religious freedom and equality under the law.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Kavanaugh articulated that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to exclude religious buildings from historic preservation grants was in direct conflict with established Supreme Court jurisprudence on religious equality. The key legal argument centers on the interpretation that excluding religious organizations from funding programs, when such exclusions are based solely on their religious status, constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under both the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court's reasoning draws heavily from the principle articulated in McDaniel, asserting that the government cannot classify or treat religious entities differently in the provision of public benefits. Applying this principle to the Morris County case, Justice Kavanaugh likened the exclusion of religious buildings to previous instances where similar discriminatory practices were deemed unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Justice distinguished this case from others where the government engages in religious activities or where religious organizations seek exemptions from general laws. Here, the issue is solely about the exclusion from a general benefit program based on religious identity, which, according to the Court's precedents, is impermissible.

Impact

Although the Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case, Justice Kavanaugh's commentary highlights significant potential implications for future cases involving religious discrimination in public funding programs. Should the Court later decide to address similar issues, the ruling could reinforce or further clarify the boundaries of religious equality in various governmental contexts.

For municipal and state governments, this underscores the necessity of designing public benefit programs in a manner that does not inadvertently discriminate against religious organizations. Ensuring that religious entities are included on equal footing with secular ones in granting processes is essential to comply with constitutional standards.

Additionally, organizations seeking public funding for preservation projects may find this commentary encourages them to challenge exclusionary practices, potentially leading to increased judicial scrutiny of similar governmental policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To better understand the nuances of this judgment, it's essential to clarify some complex legal concepts:

Free Exercise Clause: Part of the First Amendment, it protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely without governmental interference.
Equal Protection Clause: Part of the Fourteenth Amendment, it mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, prohibiting discrimination.
Certiorari: A legal term referring to the Supreme Court's discretion to choose which cases it wishes to hear. Denying certiorari means the Court will not review the case, leaving the lower court's decision in place.
Religious Equality: A legal principle that ensures religious institutions and individuals are treated equally under the law, without favoritism or discrimination based on religious status.
Governmental Discrimination: Actions taken by government entities that unfairly target or exclude individuals or groups based on specific characteristics, such as religion.

These concepts form the backbone of the legal arguments in this case, emphasizing the protection against discrimination and the importance of maintaining religious neutrality in governmental policies.

Conclusion

The denial of certiorari in Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom from Religion Foundation leaves unresolved critical questions about the permissible scope of governmental exclusion of religious entities from public funding programs. Justice Kavanaugh's acknowledgment of the tension between the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision and established religious equality precedents suggests that the Supreme Court may need to address these issues in the future.

For now, the case serves as a reminder of the enduring principles of religious equality enshrined in the Constitution and the necessity for governments to carefully evaluate funding policies to ensure they do not inadvertently discriminate against religious organizations. As lower courts and governmental bodies navigate similar scenarios, the foundational precedents highlighted in this commentary will continue to guide the interpretation and application of religious liberty and equal protection under the law.