1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,279
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major religious

2
00:00:03,360 --> 00:00:06,720
Speaker 1: rights case today, a Missouri church that was denied state

3
00:00:06,800 --> 00:00:10,360
Speaker 1: funds for a new school playground service. Our co host

4
00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:14,040
Speaker 1: and Supreme Court reporter of Greg's Store listened to the arguments. Greg,

5
00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:17,239
Speaker 1: what was the main issue, Hi, June. Well, the main

6
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:21,920
Speaker 1: issue was whether the state was violating this church's rights

7
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: to free exercise of religion. The church says, you had

8
00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: this funding program, we would have qualified for it and

9
00:00:28,400 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: gotten money for this playground resurfacing that we wanted to

10
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:36,800
Speaker 1: do had we not been religious, But because we were church,

11
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:38,919
Speaker 1: you said we couldn't. We couldn't get the money. And

12
00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:43,200
Speaker 1: the church said that violates the Constitution's first Amendment. Well,

13
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:45,839
Speaker 1: and how how did the justice react to this in

14
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:49,839
Speaker 1: court today? Well, it was a pretty good day for

15
00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 1: the church. Uh. It appears that not only will they

16
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:56,080
Speaker 1: get the courts conservative members to say that was unconstitutional,

17
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: but Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer, two of the

18
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: Democratic appointee, also seemed very skeptical that the state could

19
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:08,120
Speaker 1: do that. Justice Kagan described what was happening here as

20
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:11,720
Speaker 1: as uh quote, a clear burden on a constitutional right,

21
00:01:11,800 --> 00:01:13,880
Speaker 1: and she said the state had to meet an extremely

22
00:01:13,959 --> 00:01:19,160
Speaker 1: high burden, have have an extremely high justification in order

23
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:22,800
Speaker 1: to be able to make this distinction, Greg, Justice Sonya

24
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:26,560
Speaker 1: so Mayor said the state might just be saying, we

25
00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 1: don't want to be involved with the church, and so

26
00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:31,360
Speaker 1: she seemed to be on the other side of the issue.

27
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 1: Were there any other justices who agreed with her? Yeah,

28
00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:39,520
Speaker 1: Justice so Mayor in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to

29
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:45,160
Speaker 1: be the two who were most inclined to agree with

30
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 1: Missouri that that it could make this distinction. Justice Ginsburg

31
00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: pointing to a Ninete case that she said, essentially said

32
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:56,480
Speaker 1: in no uncertain terms that that Missouri could do what

33
00:01:56,600 --> 00:02:00,160
Speaker 1: it's doing here. But they did not seem to get

34
00:02:00,160 --> 00:02:02,720
Speaker 1: the support support that they would need from the other

35
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:05,480
Speaker 1: two Democratic appointees, and and it certainly didn't seem like

36
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:10,799
Speaker 1: they had anyone like Justice Kennedy from the court's conservative wing.

37
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: It's interesting, Greg, because this is an area, you know,

38
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: church state cases that has bedeviled the Court for seventy

39
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:21,280
Speaker 1: years now. It's never they've never been able to draw

40
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:24,680
Speaker 1: a line in a way that's very consistent. Have they No,

41
00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:26,679
Speaker 1: they have it. And one of the issues they that

42
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:31,240
Speaker 1: they have here is that there's also the establishment Clause, which, um,

43
00:02:31,320 --> 00:02:34,079
Speaker 1: you know, limits what the federal government and states can

44
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,520
Speaker 1: do in support of churches. And this case was about

45
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:39,840
Speaker 1: the free exercise clause, which is a different prob of

46
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, and those two clauses are often intention

47
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 1: and what Missouri was arguing was that there is some

48
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:50,079
Speaker 1: as he put it, play between the joints where a

49
00:02:50,200 --> 00:02:53,960
Speaker 1: state can choose whether or not to provide some aid

50
00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:59,520
Speaker 1: to a religiously affiliated organization. Uh So, that's and that's

51
00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 1: an issue at the justices have gone back and forth

52
00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:05,040
Speaker 1: with over the over the years on the Supreme Court.

53
00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:08,640
Speaker 1: Uh So, it is a complicated area of the law.

54
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 1: But at least in terms of the outcome in this case,

55
00:03:11,840 --> 00:03:16,280
Speaker 1: the argument that I witnessed upstairs today seem seemed fairly clear.

56
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,600
Speaker 1: The Federal Appeals Court below had pointed to a two

57
00:03:20,680 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 1: thousand four Supreme Court ruling that sad states that offer

58
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:29,160
Speaker 1: college scholarships can deny them to students majoring in theology.

59
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:32,760
Speaker 1: How was that case distinguished at the arguments well so

60
00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:36,840
Speaker 1: so that that came up in passing? It didn't They

61
00:03:36,840 --> 00:03:39,680
Speaker 1: didn't dwell on that as much as one might have

62
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 1: have thought, uh, you know, that was a case where

63
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:46,480
Speaker 1: it was a student who was going to study theology,

64
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:52,240
Speaker 1: and uh, you know that that case was was sort

65
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: of distinguished from something here where it was a clearly

66
00:03:55,960 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: secular purpose for the funding. This was resurfaceing using recycled

67
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 1: tires a playground, and there were questions about whether you know,

68
00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: the church could hold religious services on there or something

69
00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:11,120
Speaker 1: like that. Um that you know, the suggestion that it

70
00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:14,520
Speaker 1: was clearly something that that benefited the church as a whole.

71
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:19,839
Speaker 1: But the program itself in this case was clearly neutral

72
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,080
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't say clearly neutral, but but uh, the

73
00:04:23,160 --> 00:04:26,600
Speaker 1: justices seemed to sort of accept that this program was

74
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,680
Speaker 1: not a religious program. It was a neutral program of

75
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:33,120
Speaker 1: of just you know, making playgrounds safer and nicer places

76
00:04:33,200 --> 00:04:35,720
Speaker 1: to play. You know, Greg, I would imagine back and

77
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 1: say the nineteen seventies, you might have had more justices

78
00:04:39,000 --> 00:04:41,400
Speaker 1: who are sympathetic to the state's argument about staying not

79
00:04:41,480 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 1: getting entangled with religion. But the court really has come

80
00:04:44,360 --> 00:04:47,600
Speaker 1: a long way closer to justice Alito's use our religion,

81
00:04:47,600 --> 00:04:50,920
Speaker 1: over the years, hasn't it. Yeah, they sure have, and

82
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:54,159
Speaker 1: and uh, um, you know this is if you can

83
00:04:54,800 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 1: name the top two or three or four defining features

84
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:00,799
Speaker 1: of this court under John Roberts, h. You know, support

85
00:05:00,839 --> 00:05:04,560
Speaker 1: for religious rights as they see them, uh is probably

86
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:08,200
Speaker 1: one of those defining features. Uh uh. You know, churches

87
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 1: are getting a pretty pretty good hearing these days at

88
00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:15,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Thanks so much for telling us all

89
00:05:15,080 --> 00:05:19,400
Speaker 1: about those arguments. That's co host Greg Store and of

90
00:05:19,400 --> 00:05:21,920
Speaker 1: course Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter