Introduction

The legal landscape surrounding the intersection of government funding and religious organizations remains a contentious area of constitutional law. In the case of Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, et al. v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al., the Supreme Court of the United States denied petitions for writs of certiorari. The decision, delivered on March 4, 2019, by Justice Kavanaugh, with Justices Alito and Gorsuch concurring, addresses the contentious issue of governmental exclusion of religious organizations from historic preservation funding programs. This commentary delves into the nuances of the case, the judgment, and its broader implications within the framework of First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

Summary of the Judgment

The central issue in this case revolves around Morris County, New Jersey's distribution of historic preservation funds aimed at preserving local structures such as libraries, schoolhouses, performing arts centers, museums, and notably, religious buildings including synagogues, temples, churches, and mosques. The controversy arises from a New Jersey Supreme Court interpretation that prohibits the county from awarding grants to preserve religious buildings on the grounds that they are religious.

The petitioners, which include the Freedom From Religion Foundation and The Presbyterian Church in Morristown, argue that this exclusion amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against religion, violating both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While the New Jersey Supreme Court found the state's actions not in violation of these constitutional protections, Justice Kavanaugh, in his statement, suggests that the decision is at odds with established Supreme Court precedents on religious equality.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari, indicating that it would not review the case at that time. The denial was based on two primary reasons: insufficient clarity regarding the specifics of the Morris County program and the recent nature of the precedent established in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which had not yet been extensively addressed in lower courts concerning historic preservation grants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Justice Kavanaugh references several key Supreme Court cases that establish the principle of religious equality and the prohibition of governmental discrimination against religious entities:

• McDANIEL v. PATY (1978): Affirmed that the government cannot use religion as a basis for classification in imposing duties, penalties, privileges, or benefits.
• LARSON v. VALENTE (1982): Reinforced that the government cannot discriminate against religious denominations under the Constitution.
• CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. HIALEAH (1993): Established that laws targeting religious beliefs are impermissible.
• Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Held that the state cannot impose special disabilities based on religious status.
• Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017): Ruled that excluding religious organizations from certain public benefits solely because of their religious status violates the Equal Protection Clause.
• Additional cases such as GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, and Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District further underscore the Court's stance against religious discrimination.

These precedents collectively affirm that any form of governmental discrimination against religious organizations or individuals, particularly in the allocation of benefits or grants, is unconstitutional.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Kavanaugh's statement underscores the consistent application of the constitutional principle of religious equality. By referencing established cases, the Justice highlights that discrimination against religious entities in governmental programs contravenes both the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The analogy drawn between New Jersey's exclusion of religious buildings from preservation grants and other instances where religious entities were barred from public benefits (e.g., Missouri's exclusion of religious schools from playground grants) serves to illustrate the problematic nature of such discrimination. The comparison emphasizes that when the government excludes religious organizations solely based on their religious nature, it perpetuates unconstitutional bias.

However, the denial of certiorari is grounded not in agreement or disagreement with the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision but rather in procedural considerations. The lack of clarity concerning the specific parameters of the Morris County program and the nascent state of jurisprudence post-Trinity Lutheran prevent the Supreme Court from making a definitive ruling at this juncture.

Impact

While the denial of certiorari leaves the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision intact, the accompanying statement by Justice Kavanaugh signals potential future scrutiny. Should the Supreme Court revisit this issue, it is likely to reaffirm the principles outlined in prior cases, thereby solidifying the prohibition against excluding religious organizations from governmental benefits based solely on their religious status.

For lower courts and governmental bodies, this commentary serves as a cautionary note to ensure that policies and grant programs are crafted in compliance with constitutional mandates against religious discrimination. Organizations seeking preservation funding may view this as an avenue to challenge similar exclusions, anticipating a Supreme Court eventually addressing the matter directly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to deny certiorari in Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation leaves unresolved the critical question of whether governmental historic preservation funds can exclude religious organizations solely based on their religious nature. Justice Kavanaugh's statement underscores the tension between the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling and established precedents advocating for religious equality.

As legal discourse continues to evolve post-Trinity Lutheran, stakeholders must vigilantly monitor how lower courts interpret and apply these principles to ensure that religious organizations receive equitable treatment in governmental grant programs. The denial of certiorari does not close the door on this issue but rather postpones a definitive Supreme Court ruling, keeping the debate open for future judicial consideration.

Ultimately, this case reinforces the enduring importance of constitutional protections against religious discrimination and the ongoing need to harmonize state practices with federal mandates to uphold the principles of equality and religious freedom.