Link
Three Texas churches damaged by Hurricane Harvey are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over their ineligibility when applying for disaster relief grants. FEMA doesn’t give money to religious organizations to avoid any excessive entanglement between church and state, but the churches say that’s unfair discrimination.
What’s especially interesting about this case is how the plaintiffs, aided by conservative lawyers at Becket, are citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer to bolster their case, making it the first time we’ve seen that ruling used for a larger purpose.
That was the ruling that said Missouri couldn’t exclude churches from a taxpayer-funded grant if the purpose of the funding was secular, like renovating a playground.
Diana Verm, an attorney with Becket, was referring to that case when she said, “Hurricane Harvey didn’t cherry-pick its victims; FEMA shouldn’t cherry-pick who it helps.” But FEMA’s not cherry-picking at all. Not everyone gets to apply for grant money. It’s that simple. The rules were decided in advance. It didn’t seem to matter to these churches until they wanted a piece of the available cash.
Using Trinity as a starting point here also seems to stretch the limits of that decision. Five of the justices who ruled in favor of the Missouri church made clear the ruling applied only in cases like a church playground, where the benefits were secular.
We haven’t seen that decision applied at the federal level, but the FEMA case isn’t a natural consequence of Trinity. It’s ridiculous for anyone to argue taxpayers should fund the rebuilding of churches — which would obviously benefit religion — when no one would ask taxpayers to fund the building of those churches in the first place.
Thoughts? Should taxpayers rebuild churches?
Three Texas churches damaged by Hurricane Harvey are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over their ineligibility when applying for disaster relief grants. FEMA doesn’t give money to religious organizations to avoid any excessive entanglement between church and state, but the churches say that’s unfair discrimination.
What’s especially interesting about this case is how the plaintiffs, aided by conservative lawyers at Becket, are citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer to bolster their case, making it the first time we’ve seen that ruling used for a larger purpose.
That was the ruling that said Missouri couldn’t exclude churches from a taxpayer-funded grant if the purpose of the funding was secular, like renovating a playground.
Diana Verm, an attorney with Becket, was referring to that case when she said, “Hurricane Harvey didn’t cherry-pick its victims; FEMA shouldn’t cherry-pick who it helps.” But FEMA’s not cherry-picking at all. Not everyone gets to apply for grant money. It’s that simple. The rules were decided in advance. It didn’t seem to matter to these churches until they wanted a piece of the available cash.
Using Trinity as a starting point here also seems to stretch the limits of that decision. Five of the justices who ruled in favor of the Missouri church made clear the ruling applied only in cases like a church playground, where the benefits were secular.
We haven’t seen that decision applied at the federal level, but the FEMA case isn’t a natural consequence of Trinity. It’s ridiculous for anyone to argue taxpayers should fund the rebuilding of churches — which would obviously benefit religion — when no one would ask taxpayers to fund the building of those churches in the first place.
Thoughts? Should taxpayers rebuild churches?
That certainly convinced me to change my mind.
