|
Liz Sepper@lsepper.bsky.social |
ADF also argued that not granting this charter violates the free exercise clause. That's supreme court bait, and it would mean that the state constitutional provisions justifying disallowing the funding don't matter. This is basically an upside down version of the religious school funding cases
2 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
Res ipsa locutus of borg
@masbackward.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I'm a little optimistic they won't do it here -- the question of what institution is a state actor is ultimately one of state law and I don't think even this court would say that religious institutions have a free exercise right to be state actors.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Joe Gordon
@joegordon.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This has always been the dangerous endpoint: there’s no principled way to distinguish between forbidden establishment and mandatory FE when the latter includes funding, equal or otherwise. I would hope SCOTUS would pass on this bc of the statutory and OK Const parts of the holding. But yeah.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes