1 00:00:00,680 --> 00:00:05,320 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:05,680 --> 00:00:08,880 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court Justice is signaled a sharp divide in 3 00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:12,040 Speaker 1: a Montana case that could make it easier to funnel 4 00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:16,200 Speaker 1: public money to religious schools and other faith based organizations. 5 00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:20,840 Speaker 1: The Montana Supreme Court struck down a taxpayer funded scholarship 6 00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:24,119 Speaker 1: program that was used primarily to help send children to 7 00:00:24,200 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 1: religious schools, ruling that it violated the state constitution. In 8 00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,280 Speaker 1: a challenge to that ruling, the justices seemed divided along 9 00:00:32,360 --> 00:00:37,520 Speaker 1: ideological lines. Here are Justice is Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito. 10 00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:40,239 Speaker 1: Whether you go to a religious school or you go 11 00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:43,360 Speaker 1: to a secular private school, you're in the same boat 12 00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:47,960 Speaker 1: at this point. So I've always understood in these kinds 13 00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:52,320 Speaker 1: of cases that the harm is the perceived or alleged 14 00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:55,840 Speaker 1: or actual whatever you want to call it. Discrimination. But 15 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:59,320 Speaker 1: there is no discrimination at this point going on? Is there? 16 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:02,840 Speaker 1: M There's a difference between saying we're not going to 17 00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:07,839 Speaker 1: fund religious activities and saying we're going to discriminate based 18 00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:11,320 Speaker 1: on religion. That's the point that nobody's claiming the state 19 00:01:11,360 --> 00:01:16,480 Speaker 1: has an obligation to make particular grants to religious institutions. 20 00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:20,040 Speaker 1: Joining me is Katherine Frankie, a professor at Columbia Law School. 21 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:25,560 Speaker 1: This case involves a state tax credit program for private 22 00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:28,640 Speaker 1: education in Montana. Tell us a little bit about it, 23 00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:31,520 Speaker 1: give us some of the background. Over half the states 24 00:01:31,560 --> 00:01:35,360 Speaker 1: have provisions similar to Montana's in their laws or in 25 00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:40,680 Speaker 1: their constitutions that prohibit the state from funding religious institutions. 26 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:44,400 Speaker 1: And what this is is a challenge to the state's 27 00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:48,080 Speaker 1: decision that it will no longer grant tuition credits or 28 00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:51,840 Speaker 1: other funding to parochial schools because they have to comply 29 00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,800 Speaker 1: with their own law that no public funding can go 30 00:01:54,920 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 1: to a religious entity. So tell me what the arguments 31 00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:01,639 Speaker 1: are pro and con here. Well, what we're seeing argued 32 00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:04,360 Speaker 1: in this case is a follow up to an earlier 33 00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:07,160 Speaker 1: Supreme Court case just of a few years ago that 34 00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:11,880 Speaker 1: dealt with a state program that prohibited religious schools from 35 00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:16,800 Speaker 1: bidding for contracts for supplies for playgrounds, for instance. So 36 00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:20,640 Speaker 1: a secular school could apply for playground equipment, but a 37 00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:25,440 Speaker 1: religious school couldn't. And here the faith based actors are 38 00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:29,959 Speaker 1: making an even more radical argument, a more radical interpretation 39 00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:33,600 Speaker 1: of the First Amendments protections for religious liberty than we 40 00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:36,920 Speaker 1: saw in that earlier case. And what they're saying is 41 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:42,800 Speaker 1: that any policy or law bias state that prohibits funding 42 00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:50,040 Speaker 1: of religious institutions amounts to discrimination against those religious institutions 43 00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:54,200 Speaker 1: and violates the First Amendments protections for religious liberty. Now, 44 00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:57,519 Speaker 1: this is a very radical way to think about how 45 00:02:57,639 --> 00:03:01,760 Speaker 1: the Constitution protects religious liberty because we also have this 46 00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:06,640 Speaker 1: twin commitment to separation of church and state. And many 47 00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:09,760 Speaker 1: states have made the decision over a number of years, 48 00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:13,240 Speaker 1: Montana being one of them, that they want to keep 49 00:03:13,320 --> 00:03:18,880 Speaker 1: a very clear separation between state public money and private 50 00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,239 Speaker 1: religious institutions. And so they've decided that they wouldn't fund 51 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,880 Speaker 1: private religious institutions. That does not, in the eyes of 52 00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:28,440 Speaker 1: the framers, or in the eyes of the Supreme Court 53 00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:33,720 Speaker 1: until very recently, amount to discrimination against religious institutions. It 54 00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:38,280 Speaker 1: merely amounts to decision that religious institutions should remain in 55 00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:42,600 Speaker 1: the private sector. So Justice Elena Kagan said, because there's 56 00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:47,640 Speaker 1: no program, both the parents seeking tax credits for private 57 00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:53,240 Speaker 1: religious schools or for secular institutions were in the same boat. Well, 58 00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,360 Speaker 1: these are discretionary programs to begin with, the state doesn't 59 00:03:56,360 --> 00:03:59,960 Speaker 1: have to provide tax credits for education in the first place. 60 00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:02,880 Speaker 1: So whether you're in a religious school or you're in 61 00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:06,720 Speaker 1: a private non religious school, the secular day school, all 62 00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:08,400 Speaker 1: of them are in the same boat. They have no 63 00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:12,480 Speaker 1: entitlement to public money or funding. But those who go 64 00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:15,280 Speaker 1: to a secular school, if there is a program that 65 00:04:15,320 --> 00:04:18,279 Speaker 1: would grant tuition credits there and again this all should 66 00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:21,400 Speaker 1: be seen against the backdrop of private charter schools and 67 00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:25,560 Speaker 1: the amount of money that's being drained from public schools 68 00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:29,320 Speaker 1: through funding a private charter schools. So in states where 69 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:32,919 Speaker 1: they do fund charter schools, um there isn't a risk 70 00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,880 Speaker 1: in that context of crossing over that boundary between the 71 00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:41,240 Speaker 1: separation of church and states. Now, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed 72 00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:45,760 Speaker 1: to anti Catholic bias that he said proliferated at the time. 73 00:04:46,240 --> 00:04:50,000 Speaker 1: Does that have any relevance. There are some states that 74 00:04:50,160 --> 00:04:54,440 Speaker 1: have adopted what we're called Blaine amendments to their constitutions 75 00:04:54,880 --> 00:04:59,479 Speaker 1: much much earlier than Montana did. These Blaine amendments in 76 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:04,560 Speaker 1: some cases were motivated by anti Catholic animusts, and there 77 00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:08,720 Speaker 1: are a problem for that reason. But Montana's law is 78 00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:11,400 Speaker 1: not a blamee amendment. There is no evidence that the 79 00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:14,599 Speaker 1: law was put in place in Montana as an effort 80 00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:19,720 Speaker 1: to discriminate against any religious group or organization, or Catholics 81 00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:22,760 Speaker 1: in particular. It was a measure that was adopted in 82 00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:26,719 Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies to create a clear distinction between the 83 00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:30,480 Speaker 1: Church and the state of Montana. And so for Justice 84 00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:34,039 Speaker 1: Kavanaugh to say, well, because there was some evidence, you know, 85 00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:38,320 Speaker 1: ten twenty fifty years earlier, that states had bias against 86 00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,800 Speaker 1: the Catholic Church or against Catholics, and therefore Montana must 87 00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:44,839 Speaker 1: have also, it's just wrong. There's no evidence of that 88 00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,240 Speaker 1: at all in this case. Justice Stephen Bryer seemed concerned 89 00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:51,560 Speaker 1: about where a decision making it easier to funnel public 90 00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:55,680 Speaker 1: money to religious schools would lead, say, in San Francisco 91 00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:59,200 Speaker 1: or Boston, or take any city of state, and they 92 00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:03,279 Speaker 1: give many, many, many millions of dollars to the public 93 00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:06,560 Speaker 1: school system, and a lot of them give a lot 94 00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:12,000 Speaker 1: of money to charter schools. Now they don't give money 95 00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:16,920 Speaker 1: and to Catholic schools all right, Now, if we decide 96 00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:22,200 Speaker 1: your right, does that all change? Chief Justice John Roberts 97 00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:26,279 Speaker 1: suggested the Montana court ruling was like a government decision 98 00:06:26,320 --> 00:06:29,839 Speaker 1: to close swimming pools because too many African Americans were 99 00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:32,400 Speaker 1: using them. Do you see a difference there? Well, that 100 00:06:32,520 --> 00:06:36,039 Speaker 1: question I thought was actually quite offensive from the Chief Justice. Now, 101 00:06:36,200 --> 00:06:38,960 Speaker 1: I know he's had a hard day, UM, having a 102 00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:42,000 Speaker 1: tough week because he's got two jobs right now, both 103 00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:45,279 Speaker 1: of which are very difficult. Um. But the move that's 104 00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:48,800 Speaker 1: being made by the students who or parents of the 105 00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:52,120 Speaker 1: students who want to continue to get tax credits to 106 00:06:52,200 --> 00:06:57,840 Speaker 1: go to religious um private schools. UM analogizing saying it's 107 00:06:57,880 --> 00:07:00,599 Speaker 1: the exact same thing as discriminating on the basis of 108 00:07:00,720 --> 00:07:06,520 Speaker 1: race is an absolute corruption of how we understand racistcrimination 109 00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:10,440 Speaker 1: protections in the Constitution and how we understand the protection 110 00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:14,640 Speaker 1: of religious liberty in the Constitution. And it is this 111 00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:17,000 Speaker 1: kind of argument was made a number of years ago 112 00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:19,520 Speaker 1: in lower courts and they were laughed out of court. 113 00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:24,160 Speaker 1: They were absolutely laughed out of court because the doctrine 114 00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,840 Speaker 1: that we bring to bear in the racistcrimination context is 115 00:07:26,920 --> 00:07:31,280 Speaker 1: totally different than in the religious liberty context. Because we 116 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,840 Speaker 1: have a commitment to the separation of church and state 117 00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:39,160 Speaker 1: in the First Amendment, we don't have a similar commitment 118 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:42,120 Speaker 1: that the that the state should not be involved in 119 00:07:42,160 --> 00:07:48,080 Speaker 1: eradicating racistcrimination in the racial equality context. So Justice Roberts's 120 00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:52,800 Speaker 1: um uh question was one that was really a softball 121 00:07:52,880 --> 00:07:57,320 Speaker 1: pitch to those advocates that are pushing this very radical 122 00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:01,320 Speaker 1: way of seeing any separate ration of church and state, 123 00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:03,880 Speaker 1: as in what Montana is trying to do with their 124 00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:07,560 Speaker 1: law as a form of discrimination against religion, and its 125 00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:11,720 Speaker 1: just that's not how the Framers ever intended religious liberty 126 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:14,320 Speaker 1: in the separation of church and state to work, nor 127 00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:18,240 Speaker 1: how the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Claude should work. But 128 00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:22,920 Speaker 1: part of the constitution that um that protects racial equality. 129 00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:27,560 Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito seemed to say that this case was 130 00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:32,960 Speaker 1: the next logical step after that seen case involving religious 131 00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:37,360 Speaker 1: schools and a Missouri program to resurface playgrounds. Does that 132 00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:41,400 Speaker 1: indicate that the Conservatives on the Court are moving away 133 00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:44,760 Speaker 1: from a strict separation of church and state. Well, when 134 00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:48,000 Speaker 1: the Framers wrote the First Amendment and they protected these 135 00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:51,240 Speaker 1: twin values of religious liberty on the one hand and 136 00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:53,680 Speaker 1: on the separation of church and state on the other, 137 00:08:54,120 --> 00:08:57,920 Speaker 1: they had a very delicate balance, a complicated balance in mind, 138 00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:00,400 Speaker 1: and how to manage those two commit It meant that 139 00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:04,120 Speaker 1: the state certainly shouldn't get in the way of private 140 00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:08,400 Speaker 1: religious parties religious exercise, but it also can't get so 141 00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:13,760 Speaker 1: involved in facilitating helping out that private religious exercise that 142 00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:18,440 Speaker 1: is actually entangling itself with religion or facilitating religion. And 143 00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:22,480 Speaker 1: so the Supreme Court over the years, over really a 144 00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:25,360 Speaker 1: hundred year period, has been trying to figure out what 145 00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:29,640 Speaker 1: that balance looks like between respecting religious liberty of private 146 00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:32,320 Speaker 1: parties on the one hand, and keeping the state out 147 00:09:32,320 --> 00:09:35,200 Speaker 1: of the religion business on the other. And what we're 148 00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 1: seeing this new trend with this Court is much greater 149 00:09:39,240 --> 00:09:42,480 Speaker 1: emphasis given to religious liberty on the one hand, and 150 00:09:42,559 --> 00:09:46,480 Speaker 1: much less emphasis or protection given to the separation of 151 00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:51,640 Speaker 1: church and state, such that protecting religious liberty is actually swallowing, entirely, 152 00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 1: eating up entirely what I think is the proper and 153 00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:59,640 Speaker 1: careful balance of the state keeping out of, um facilitating 154 00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:04,920 Speaker 1: or in angling itself in religious practices. Only Justices Sonya 155 00:10:05,000 --> 00:10:09,400 Speaker 1: Soto Mayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in the Missouri 156 00:10:09,440 --> 00:10:15,280 Speaker 1: playground case. Is that surprising that they were the only well? 157 00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:18,120 Speaker 1: It is? I think it is surprising because if a 158 00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:22,280 Speaker 1: state bends over too far backwards to protect the religious 159 00:10:22,280 --> 00:10:25,120 Speaker 1: liberty of some citizens, which I think is the case 160 00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:29,080 Speaker 1: in that Trinity Lutheran playground case, or may end up 161 00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:33,000 Speaker 1: being the case in the Montanic situation, the religious liberty 162 00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:37,920 Speaker 1: of other people, say, religious minorities, maybe at risk. And 163 00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:41,160 Speaker 1: so for even for those justices who care deeply about 164 00:10:41,200 --> 00:10:44,800 Speaker 1: religious liberty, such as Gorsets, such as Aldo, such as 165 00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:49,560 Speaker 1: Kavan and Chief Justice Roberts, Um, if they really cared 166 00:10:49,559 --> 00:10:53,360 Speaker 1: about protecting all religious liberty, they would be careful not 167 00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:57,960 Speaker 1: to expand the rights of evangelical Christians too far, because 168 00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:01,280 Speaker 1: then you have the state facilitating theligious practices of some 169 00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,079 Speaker 1: at the risk of inhibiting the religious practices of others. 170 00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:08,600 Speaker 1: So Justice Elana Kagan had voted to strike down that 171 00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,520 Speaker 1: Missouri program we were talking about, But did it seem 172 00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:16,240 Speaker 1: in these arguments that she might not go that way 173 00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:19,559 Speaker 1: with this case. I think it's hard to say. Um, 174 00:11:19,559 --> 00:11:21,400 Speaker 1: it's hard to say. You know, the comments that the 175 00:11:21,600 --> 00:11:24,760 Speaker 1: justices make during oral argument are not often a good 176 00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:27,760 Speaker 1: indication of how they're going to vote. So I wouldn't 177 00:11:27,760 --> 00:11:31,199 Speaker 1: read too much into those tea leaves based on the arguments. So, 178 00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:35,360 Speaker 1: is this a case where Justice Roberts will be the 179 00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:38,000 Speaker 1: swing vote or is this a case that's going to 180 00:11:38,120 --> 00:11:41,720 Speaker 1: line up in different ways. Well, I've learned early on 181 00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:43,920 Speaker 1: to be careful not to predict how the Supreme Court's 182 00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:47,880 Speaker 1: going to rule. But if the Trinity Lutheran and Masterpiece 183 00:11:47,920 --> 00:11:52,840 Speaker 1: Cake Shop cases, the the last two really large religious 184 00:11:52,840 --> 00:11:55,720 Speaker 1: liberty cases that the Supreme Court has decided, if there 185 00:11:55,760 --> 00:11:59,440 Speaker 1: are any indication we may have a fairly lopsided ruling 186 00:11:59,440 --> 00:12:02,120 Speaker 1: here on the half of the faith based students who 187 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:05,240 Speaker 1: want to get tuition credits from the state of Montana. 188 00:12:05,559 --> 00:12:09,360 Speaker 1: Is there a conservative movement across the country looking to 189 00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:13,760 Speaker 1: pave the way for more opinions about religious liberty. Well, 190 00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:16,800 Speaker 1: I think what we're seeing happening with the kinds of 191 00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:20,880 Speaker 1: claims that are made by faith based individuals and organizations 192 00:12:20,960 --> 00:12:25,520 Speaker 1: across a range of contexts, is the use of religious 193 00:12:25,520 --> 00:12:29,360 Speaker 1: liberty is a way to undo what are forms of 194 00:12:29,400 --> 00:12:33,079 Speaker 1: secular lawmaking, whether it's around gay rights, whether it's about 195 00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:36,760 Speaker 1: contraception or abortion and reproductive liberty. More generally, you know, 196 00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:40,440 Speaker 1: these hot button issues where we have a state or 197 00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:43,040 Speaker 1: the federal governments, perhaps in the form of the Affordable 198 00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:46,280 Speaker 1: Care Act and in other laws, passing laws that some 199 00:12:46,360 --> 00:12:50,880 Speaker 1: religious conservatives don't agree with. Rather than going through the 200 00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:55,000 Speaker 1: normal legislative process where you say, well, let's elect different 201 00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:58,559 Speaker 1: people who are more in keeping with my views, instead 202 00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:00,880 Speaker 1: they say, well, then those laws don't apply to me. 203 00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:05,640 Speaker 1: And it's a very anti democratic way to approach what 204 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:12,080 Speaker 1: is an effort of democratic lawmaking in pluralistic societies. Normally, 205 00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:14,360 Speaker 1: your response when a law has passed that you don't 206 00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:17,520 Speaker 1: agree with. It's not to say that law doesn't doesn't 207 00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:20,640 Speaker 1: apply to me, but we need a different law. Let's 208 00:13:20,679 --> 00:13:24,160 Speaker 1: go through the regular legislative process and change the law. 209 00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:28,160 Speaker 1: So I fear what's happening in across these contexts, whether 210 00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:32,400 Speaker 1: it's stay rights, same sex marriage rights, contraception, the power 211 00:13:32,480 --> 00:13:35,439 Speaker 1: of private religious schools is that this is an end 212 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:38,600 Speaker 1: run around state legislatures in ways that I think, in 213 00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:42,960 Speaker 1: the long run, will undermine democratic values. There were dozens 214 00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:47,080 Speaker 1: of amicus briefs here from a whole range of organizations 215 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:51,440 Speaker 1: and people. Doesn't show how important this issue is because 216 00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:55,200 Speaker 1: the number seemed to reflect the kinds of amicus briefs 217 00:13:55,240 --> 00:13:59,400 Speaker 1: you see in abortion rights cases and gun rights cases, 218 00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,760 Speaker 1: immigrant action cases. Well, I think the people working on 219 00:14:02,800 --> 00:14:05,319 Speaker 1: this issue and the people who filed amicust briefs are 220 00:14:05,360 --> 00:14:07,960 Speaker 1: connecting the dots they see. This is not only about 221 00:14:08,080 --> 00:14:11,320 Speaker 1: private religious school of funding, but it's also about the 222 00:14:11,320 --> 00:14:14,240 Speaker 1: ways in which religious liberty rights have been used across 223 00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:17,199 Speaker 1: a range of other contexts. And so what's at state 224 00:14:17,280 --> 00:14:20,320 Speaker 1: here is certainly important for these kids and their parents 225 00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:24,000 Speaker 1: who want to have funding for their religious education. But 226 00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:26,760 Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court does in this case will certainly 227 00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:31,280 Speaker 1: have implications for faith based efforts to undermine or opt 228 00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:36,200 Speaker 1: out of same sex marriage, gay rights, more generally, trans rights, 229 00:14:36,440 --> 00:14:39,920 Speaker 1: reproductive rights in a range of context. So this is 230 00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:42,280 Speaker 1: not a narrow set of questions that the courts having 231 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:45,080 Speaker 1: to answer in this case. They're quite broad, and that's 232 00:14:45,080 --> 00:14:48,000 Speaker 1: why you see so many groups weighing in trying to 233 00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:52,080 Speaker 1: push the court in particular directions that will implicate these 234 00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:56,360 Speaker 1: other places where religion is so important. Finally, about eighteen 235 00:14:56,400 --> 00:14:59,880 Speaker 1: twenty other states have tax credit programs resembling what my 236 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:03,720 Speaker 1: Antanna had. Will the Supreme Court decision in this case 237 00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:09,160 Speaker 1: necessarily affect those other states? Or might the Court right 238 00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:12,760 Speaker 1: this narrowly enough that it won't. The Court could write 239 00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:17,120 Speaker 1: an opinion that specifically addresses the details of the Montana 240 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:21,120 Speaker 1: tax credit system, in which case we'll have to litigate 241 00:15:21,160 --> 00:15:23,840 Speaker 1: in all those other states to see whether they're similar 242 00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:27,400 Speaker 1: enough to Montana or different enough from Montana that the 243 00:15:27,520 --> 00:15:31,160 Speaker 1: ruling in this case won't apply. So um, what we 244 00:15:31,240 --> 00:15:33,240 Speaker 1: are seeing the court do in a number of these 245 00:15:33,280 --> 00:15:36,640 Speaker 1: religious cases, religious liberty cases, and other kind of hot 246 00:15:36,680 --> 00:15:41,880 Speaker 1: button social justice issues is right, pretty narrow opinions so 247 00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:46,120 Speaker 1: that there isn't a really radical overhaul of something like 248 00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:49,800 Speaker 1: the state funding system for public and private education as 249 00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:53,400 Speaker 1: we see in Montana. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Catherine. 250 00:15:53,640 --> 00:15:56,760 Speaker 1: That's Professor Katherine Frankie of Columbia Law School.