Showing posts with label Historic preservation grants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic preservation grants. Show all posts

Friday, April 28, 2023

Suit Seeks Historic Preservation Funds for Churches

Two historic churches have filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging Morris County's exclusion of properties currently used for religious purposes from receiving Historic Preservation funds from the county. Plaintiffs contend that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases invalidate an earlier state Supreme Court decision barring churches from participation in such funding programs. The complaint (full text) in Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 4/28/2023), alleges in part:

In 2018 ... the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution bars state and local governments from providing grants to preserve the architecture of historic churches. Freedom From Religion Found. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders ...

This is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion: States and local governments that choose to provide a generally available public benefit—such as historic preservation grants—cannot exclude an otherwise-qualified applicant solely because the applicant happens to be a house of worship. See Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1996 (2022).... ;Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue...., 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262 (2020)....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Monday, March 04, 2019

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Case On Preservation Grants To Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in the companion cases of Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (Docket No.18-364) and Presbyterian Church in Morristown v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (Docket No. 18-365) (certiorari denied 3/4/2019). (Order List [scroll to pg. 9]).  In the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that historic preservation grants to 12 churches (totaling $4.6 million) violate the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.  That clause (Art. I, Sec. 3) provides that no person shall be obliged to pay taxes for building or repairing any church. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that there is no implied exception to this prohibition for historical preservation, and that this is consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.)  In the U.S. Supreme Court today, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, filed a statement concurring in the denial of review, but contending that:
the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court is in serious tension with this Court’s religious equality precedents.
However they agreed that certiorari should be denied in this case both because of unclear factual details and because
there is not yet a robust post-Trinity Lutheran body of case law in the lower courts on the question whether governments may exclude religious organizations from general historic preservation grants programs.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Cert Filed In Case Testing Limits of Trinity Lutheran Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.  In the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that historic preservation grants to 12 churches (totaling $4.6 million) violate the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.  The Court went on to hold that this interpretation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The petition for review frames the issues in the case as follows:
1. Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a “religious use” that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran [v. Comer].
2. Whether the categorical exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violates Trinity Lutheran and the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.
Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

New Jersey Supreme Court Says Grants To Churches Violate State Constitution

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, (NJ Sup.Ct., April 18, 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that historic preservation grants to 12 churches (totaling $4.6 million) violate the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.  That clause (Art. I, Sec. 3) provides that no person shall be obliged to pay taxes for building or repairing any church. The court concluded that there is no implied exception to this prohibition for historical preservation.

The Court went on to hold that this interpretation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The [U.S. Supreme Court's] holding of Trinity Lutheran does not encompass the direct use of taxpayer funds to repair churches and thereby sustain religious worship activities. See 137 S. Ct. at 2024 n.3. We therefore find that the application of the Religious Aid Clause in this case does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Justice Solomon filed a concurring opinion:
The majority concludes that the present case exceeds the scope of Trinity Lutheran since Morris County’s taxpayer-funded grants “went toward ‘religious uses.’”... However, that conclusion ignores New Jersey’s separate and substantial government interest at stake in this case -- historical preservation. I believe that had Morris County’s program been applied in a fundamentally neutral manner, the Religious Aid Clause could not bar funding to an otherwise qualified religious institution.
FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.  Daily Record reports on the decision.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules On Renovation Grants To Church

Caplan v. Town of Acton, (MA Sup Jud Ct, March 9, 2018), is a challenge under the Massachusetts' constitution's"anti-aid" clause to two historic-resource grants for renovation purposes to an active church.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-1 opinion, concluded:
the constitutionality of such grants must be evaluated under our three-factor test: a judge must consider whether a motivating purpose of each grant is to aid the church, whether the grant will have the effect of substantially aiding the church, and whether the grant avoids the risks of the political and economic abuses that prompted the passage of the anti-aid amendment. We also conclude that, in light of the history of the anti-aid amendment, a grant of public funds to an active church warrants careful scrutiny.... 
[W]e conclude that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim with respect to the stained glass grant. Although the record before us does not allow us to ascertain whether there is a motivating purpose behind this grant other than historic preservation, its effect is to substantially aid the church in its essential function and, given the explicit religious imagery of the stained glass, it fails to avoid the very risks that the framers of the anti-aid amendment hoped to avoid....
With respect to the Master Plan grant, we conclude that further discovery is needed before a determination should be made as to whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.  This is in part because, unlike the stained glass grant, the Master Plan grant is far broader in its scope, including not only plans for the renovation of worship space but also plans for the renovation of the Fletcher and Hosmer Houses, which are both private residences....
Justice Kafker, joined by Justice Gaziono filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Cypher filed a dissenting opinion. MassLive reports on the decision.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

NJ Court Upholds Historic Preservation Funds To Churches In State Constitutional Challenge

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, (NJ Super., Jan 9, 2017), a New Jersey trial court upheld a county's allowing churches to be among those receiving grants from the county's Historic Preservation Trust Fund.  Even though Art. 1, Par. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution prohibits the use of tax funds to build or repair any church or place of worship, the court said that the constitutional provision "is not meant to be read literally" but must be read "in conjunction with the State's longstanding tradition of neutrality in church-state relations...." The Daily Record reports on the decision.

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Suit Challenges County's Historic Preservation Grants To Churches

Yesterday's Parsippany Daily Record reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a local resident have filed suit in a New Jersey state court challenging the inclusion of churches and houses of worship as recipients of county historic preservation grants from Morris County (NJ).  Some 32% of the $22.6 million in grants since 2003 have gone to churches.  The suit contends that these grants violate Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution that provides:
nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.
The county argues that churches should be eligible because of their historic value.  The suit initially seeks a temporary injunction to bar payment of any grants awarded in the past two years that have not yet been disbursed.  In 2014, the county awarded $1.2 million to 12 churches or houses of worship for items such as restoration of roofs or facades, and for document preservation.