It refused to hear a case on funding church repairs, but several justices seek to end “pure discrimination” against religious entities
IN 1785, JAMES MADISON issued a warning in his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance”. A tax to fund the salaries of Christian teachers would put America on a dangerously slippery slope, he wrote. The “same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property” for one sect may one day compel him to pay for “any other establishment”.
decided by the New Jersey State Supreme Court in 2018. First is whether a New Jersey county board—in awarding $4.6m of renovation funds to twelve churches between 2012 and 2015—violated a clause in the state constitution guaranteeing that no one will be required to pay taxes “for building or repairing any church”. The answer, New Jersey’s high court concluded unanimously, is yes.
Following this unequivocal statement, the three justices nevertheless noted their agreement that the Supreme Court should not take upis too fresh on the scene, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, and “there is not yet a robust...body of case law in the lower courts” to clarify whether states must consider historic preservation grant requests from religious entities.
as the vehicle to move the First Amendment toward a principle commanding the government to fund religious entities equally under grant programmes. It seems the county board wasn’t just funding churches—it was favouring them.
Indonesia Berita Terbaru, Indonesia Berita utama
Similar News:Anda juga dapat membaca berita serupa dengan ini yang kami kumpulkan dari sumber berita lain.
Supreme Court suggests memorial cross does not violate separation of church and stateA majority of the Supreme Court suggested Wednesday that a 40-foot cross on public land in Maryland that was built to honor fallen soldiers in World War I does not violate the separation of church and state, but the justices struggled to settle on a rationale that lower courts could apply to other religious symbols on public lands.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supreme Court looks ready to protect Maryland’s ‘Peace Cross’ in church-state caseThe Maryland cross case is seen as the first test of whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will endorse public displays of Christian symbols.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supreme Court to decide fate of WWI memorial cross in church and state disputeThe fate of a 40-foot-tall cross built almost a century ago to honor World War I veterans is at the center of a separation of church and state dispute at the Supreme Court
Baca lebih lajut »
Opinion | Supreme Court's 'Latin cross' case attempts to clarify line between church and stateThe court’s ruling may dictate whether and what type of religious displays are permissible on public grounds, including public schools.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supreme Court won't take New Jersey church caseThree of the court's conservatives said the broader issue of whether states could deny historic preservation funds to churches must be addressed in some future case.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supreme Court punts on taxpayer funding for historic preservation of churchesThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a New Jersey case in which churches have been barred from receiving tax dollars meant for historic preservation.
Baca lebih lajut »
America’s porous wall between church and stateA 40-foot Latin cross in Maryland has become the latest flashpoint in America's constitutional duty to separate church and state
Baca lebih lajut »
Brett Kavanaugh: State laws blocking taxpayer-funded church repairs are 'pure discrimination''At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious,' Kavanaugh wrote.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supreme Court likely to shut down Trump's national emergency declaration, Rand Paul predicts'In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this,' the Republican senator said.
Baca lebih lajut »
California Supreme Court curbs a pension benefit but preserves ‘California Rule’For more than 60 years, California has adhered to the so-called 'California Rule,' which guarantees workers the pensions that were in place the day they were hired. This has stymied state and local lawmakers now wrestling with hundreds of billions of dollars in pension shortfall.
Baca lebih lajut »