On April 19, 2017, the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc v. Comer case was argued. The Trinity Lutheran Church of Colombia, Inc which began to operates a licensed preschool and daycare center named The Learning Center. [1] The Learning Center was originally a nonprofit educational program until 1985 when it merged with the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, and became a religious based organization. Since The Learning Center merged with a religiously founded organization and had a policy that allowed the school to incorporate religious activities throughout its daily program of the daycare/preschool. The problem arise when the Missouri Department of Natural Resources offered other schools a Playground Scrap Tree Service Material Grants that help provide the funds for organizations to purchase the surface to resurface playgrounds making them safer for the kids to play on [1]. The Trinity daycare center applied for the resurfacing grant but was denied the grant. The denial of the request came to its conclusion because of Article 1, section 7 of the state constitution, according to the company. Inside this article and section, it reads “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion” [2].
When the daycare area got turned down for the grant to resurface the playgrounds, the school decided to open a case and sue the company under the belief that it was being discriminatory against the school’s choice in religion. The Trinity argued that this grant that has been approved for many other schools and not their school, in particular, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause within the Fourteenth Amendment. They believed that within the Fourteen Amendment, it protected the freedom of religion and speech that they argued was being used against them and eventually why it lead to its denial for the grant. The courtroom then allowed a motion to the Missouri DNR to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim [1]. The trinity daycare then moved for “reconsideration and to amend its complaint to include allegations that such grants had previously been given to religious organization” [1] The courts denied this motion once again, the U.S. Courts of Appeal again confirmed the dismissal and denial of the motion to re-visit the complaint of the case decision, therefore sending it to the Supreme Court.
The main question behind the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc v. Comer was if the exclusion of “churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program actually violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause” [1] The church being excluded from this program was said to of been a clear violation of this amendment, that protected all citizens and provided equal protection for all. The Court stated during its trail that the Free Exercise Clause within the First Amendment protected the freedom for the school to practice their religion of choice. The problem here is that because the school is a religious establishment the government is unable to provide financial assistance to it, because government programs are not allowed to fund religious organizations. They believed that this was discriminating against the school regarding their religious preference due to the fact that the program that provided the grants was neutral program, other than that the school was more than qualified for the playground surface material grant.
I chose the side of The Learning Center, the plaintiff. David A. Cortman, who was also defending the side of the Trinity school started off his statement strong and impactful. Cortmon started the use of the Toulmin model with the claim at the very beginning where he went straight to the point on how the denial of the playground resurfacing was denied solely because the pre-school is operated religiously under a church. Corton immediately began to name the many ways the denial was discriminating against the religious practice of the school organization. Corton states “the policy, in this case, is not facially neutral, and number two, that based on their religious character, churches are not eligible for the benefit here” [3] He created a strong beginning statement when he mentioned that the grant for the playground was excluding the children from a safer playground solely because the school was run by a church. Corton starts off with the claim, that being what is being taken away from the school due to their religious status, this I found interesting because it grabs the attention of those listening by mentioning that the kids are being deprived of it due to their religious choice.
Cortman then moved onto the evidence section of the Toulmin model, he began to explain why and just how this action was discriminatory and unfair to the children within the school. He explained how simply because the school was based on a religious character this itself made them ineligible for the resurfacing, but this was considered “admitted discrimination” against the school’s chosen religion. Cortman explained how this violates the courts Free Exercise Principle. This impactful statement that stood out throughout his statement of evidence was how the Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from imposing any actions or “special disabilities” [3] simply due to the religious views or beliefs of the individual organization/person. He states how it’s unfair for them to force a choice between their freedom to exercise their preference on religion and if they’re qualified for government benefits that our rights and privileges are given to other organizations. Basically, he stated that this form of discrimination was denying children a safer playground over their religion, forcing them to choose one or the other.
When Cortmon is questioned by Anthony M. Kennedy an associate justice of the opposing parties argument, Cortmon maintained his character and points at ease with a confident demeanor. He went on to defend the statement given by Kennedy by saying “why would someone’s religious status matter in the first place to receiving government benefits..” [3] The question given was strong from the opposing party but well handled by Cortman. Ruth Bader goes on to declare that the Framers didn’t want the tax money of the government used to pay for things such as buildings and maintenance for churches or its property. Which she went on to ask if this term fit the case, where Cortman stated he didn’t believe it actually did. Cortman then stated that they need to be careful when choosing what they withhold from certain people/organizations. They need to be careful that they don’t deprive religious groups of people or their organizations of basic general benefits given by our government. Stating that there was a difference in the funding of religious activities and secular activities of the religious organization, such as creating a safer playground for the children of the school.
Throughout the oral argument, Cortman is repeatedly interrupted by various individuals mid-sentence, but maintains his argument and sounds determined to get his point across regardless of the constant disruptive interruptions cutting him off mid-point. The manner of all of the parties within this oral argument was monotoned and as predicted conflicting with the opposing parties stance. They hovered around the topic which separated funding religious practice and secular activities for the children of the school. If there was one thing I would change about my oral presentation as Cortman is trying to rephrase other words such as “I think” when stating something he seemed as valid, the purpose is to prove your point, not to state personal opinions and the phrase “I think: which was used often seems more personal than it should be; especially the tone he presented some parts sounded uncertain and timid. During some of his conversations Cortmon answered questions without stating the answer fully, needing the other party to ask him what he just denied or agreed to. The statements I would change would be to point out that the grant the school is looking for is for children to safely play on the playground, not for a religious purpose, and with this, they’re suppressing the children from basic safety needs due to their religion. Overall, Cortman did a good job handling the questions, he was able to answer quickly and effectively with the right knowledge to back up his argument. Throughout the case Cortman seemed to phrase his opinion better, creating a stronger stance.
Towards the middle of the argument, Stephen G. Breyer used the strong comparison of police protection and fire department protection and the services they give to all regardless of their religious preference. Breyer states that the police department and the fire department give everyone equal protection, what if it wasn’t allowed to give it to the church because of their religion, as he powerfully stated “we give everybody fire protection, but let the church burn down” [3] would be a unethical and unfair idea. This statement itself was very powerful, the way it was stated helped it get through as strong as it needed to be to prove the point needed to the courtroom. I believe this was one of the strongest points within the argument points, comparing things given to any other public organization or individual but deprived for those who follow a specific religion. Breyer had a very strong presence during this statement, the way he stated his opinion and comparison was presented in a very confident way that was able to convey the information in a impactful visual way.
Towards the end of the argument, you can hear the tone and the oral delivery of the argument become a bit more intense, at 37:25 of the oral argument the judge had to intervene the two opposing parties from talking over one another. It’s easy to tell that a few of the parties involved in this argument were determined to bring light to their point, which can cause one another to seem stressed while they present their argument.
Presentation within the argument is where I believed lacked a tad bit within the case, the wording and logic behind it were very strong but I felt as if it could have used at some points a stronger voice to implement the opinion. Based solely on the presentation of the argument, I would state that the individuals for the Trinity had a stronger persuasive team behind them. One of the only problems I had with the argument was the beginning portion of it, I believe it needed to be stronger for it to right off the bat be powerful. Back to David A. Cortman who spoke last in the case, he ended it strongly, confident and pointed out his rebuttal in a prominent manner.
The end of the case decision ended with them coming to an agreement that the exclusion of churches from the neutral program violated the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religious practice. Chief Justice John G. Roberts delivered the opinion that ended with a 7-2 majority. The majority stated that the school was in the right to gain the grant and to practice the religion they chose to. The First Amendment protects the schools right, and the liberty to practice their religious preference, the program giving the grant had no reason to deny the school of the playground surfacing since the program was considered a neutral program. To conclude, the court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause within the First Amendment was violated by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ policy that denied the grant, it was considered discriminating towards the school that was otherwise considered eligible for the Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant [1]. Those that played a role siding with the school in my opinion were very persuasive and executed their point strongly, the comparisons made within the oral argument were the most impactful part of it, it painted a picture that highlighted how unfair it was to deprive the school of a safer ground based solely on their religious preference. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in my opinion, was the individual who stood out the most within this cases oral argument stance. Breyer stated that the First Amendment was not created to prevent religious entities from benefiting from services given to all.