# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 13 82

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Trin it y Lut he ran Ch ur ch of C ol um bi a, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Sara Park er Pa ul ey , in he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Beck et Fu nd for Rel ig io us Lib ert y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll an t(s )

Am eri can Civ il Lib ert ie s Un io n F ou nd at io n, et al.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el le e(s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 15
Fil ed : M ay

29 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Trin it y Lut he ran Ch ur ch of Co lu m bi a, In c. (“ Trin it y Ch ur ch ”), fil ed th is act io n

al le gi ng th at Sara Pau le y , act in g i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Dire ct or of t he Mi ss ou ri
Dep art m en t of Natu ral Res ou rces (“ DNR”), vi ol at ed Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s rig ht s un de r

th e Uni te d St at es an d M i ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on s by de nyin g it s ap pl ic at io n fo r a gr an t

of so li d was te m an ag em en t fu nd s to res ur face a pl ay gr ou nd on ch ur ch pr op ert y

. The

di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e Co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m an d de ni ed Trin it y 1

Ch u r ch ’s po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt

. Trin it y
Ch ur ch ap pe al s b ot h ru li ng s. We affir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Trin it y Ch ur ch op erat es on it s ch ur ch pr em is es a li cen se d p r e s ch oo l an d

da y care cal le d th e Learn in g Cen te r. In it ia ll y es ta bl is he d as a no n- pr of it co rp or at io n,

th e Learn in g Cen te r m erg ed in to Trin it y Ch ur ch in 19 85 . The Lear ni ng Cen te r ha s

an op en ad m is si on s po li cy

. It is a m in is try of Trin it y Ch ur ch th at te ach es a Ch ris ti an

wor ld vi ew an d i nc or

po rat es da il y

rel ig io us in st ru ct io n i n i ts pro gr am s.

DNR of fers Pl ay gr ou nd Scra p Tire Su rfac e Mat eri al Gran ts

, a so li d was te

m an ag em en t pr og ram

. The gr an ts pr ov id e DNR fu nd s to qu al ifyin g or ga ni zat io ns fo r

th e pu rch as e of recycled ti res to res ur face pl ay gr ou nd s, a be ne fic ia l reu se of th is so li d

was te

. See Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § § 2 60 .33 5.1

, 26 0.2 73 .6(2 ). In 20 12

, Trin it y Ch ur ch

ap pl ie d fo r a gr an t to rep la ce t he Learn in g Cen te r’s pl ay gr ou nd su rfac e, di sc lo si ng

th at th e Learn in g Cen te r was pa rt of Trin it y Ch ur ch

. On May 21

, 20 1 2

, t h e So li d

W as te Man ag em en t Pr ogr am D ir ec tor w ro te the L ea rnin g Cen te r’s Dire ct or , ad vi si ng :

The Ho n or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-[A]fter fu rth er re v ie w of ap pl ic ab le co ns ti tu ti on al li m it at io ns , th e

de pa rtment is un ab le to pr ov id e th is fin an ci al as si st an ce dir ect ly to th e ch ur ch as co nt em

pl at ed by th e gr an t a p p l ic at io n. Pl eas e no te th at Arti cl e I, Sect io n 7 of th e Mi ss o u r i Co ns ti tu ti on sp eci fic al ly pr ov id es th at “ no m on ey sh al l ev er be ta ke n fro m th e pu bl ic tre as ur y , di rect ly or in di rect ly, in aid of a ny chu rch , sec ti on or d en om in at io n o f rel ig io n.”

A So li d W as te Man ag em en t Pro gr am pl an ne r su bs eq ue nt ly ad vi se d th e So li d W as te

Man ag em en t Dis tri ct Dire ct or th at Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s a p p li cat io n ran ke d fif th ou t of

fo rty fou r ap pl ic at io ns in 20 12 , and th at fou rte en pro jects were fu nd ed

.

Trin it y Ch ur ch co m

m en ced th is act io n, as se rti ng fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on

o ve r cl ai m s th at th e de ni al of it s Scra p Tire ap pl ic at io n vi ol at ed (i) t h e Eq u a l

Pro t ect io n Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t, (ii ) it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to

free ex erci se of rel ig io n, (ii i) th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t’s Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se , an d (iv )

it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of free sp eech

. The Co m pl ai nt in vo ke d th e di st ric t co ur t’s

su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic t i o n ov er a fif th cau se of act io n, al le gi ng th at DNR’s de ni al

vi ol at ed Arti cl e I, Sect io n 7, of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on

. Tr i n i ty Ch ur ch so ug ht

in jun ct iv e an d de cl arat or y rel ie f ag ai ns t DNR “ po li ci es an d act io ns in de nyin g gr an ts

to ap pl ic an ts who are ch ur ch es or c on ne ct ed to ch ur ch es .”

The di st ric t co ur t g r an te d Dire ct or Pau le y ’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt

fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

. Trin it y ti m el y m ov ed fo r reco ns id erat io n an d fo r le av e to

am en d it s co m

pl ai nt to ad d a fact ua l al le ga ti on th a t t h e D N R ha d pr ev io us ly gi ve n

gr an ts un de r th e Scra p Tire Pro gr am to at le as t fif te en ot he r rel ig io us or ga ni zat io ns , in cl ud in g ch ur ch es

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n to reco ns id er. It al so de ni ed

le av e to am en d b ecau se Trin it y Ch ur ch “ fai l[e d] t o pr ov id e an y ex pl an at io n fo r no t

am en di ng it s Co m

pl ai nt pr io r to th e di sm is sa l of th is act io n.” The co ur t fu rth er no te d

t ha t th e am en dm en t was “ fu ti le ” be cau se , whi le Trin it y Ch ur ch arg ue d th e ne wly

al le ge d fa ct “ un de rm in es Mi ss ou ri’s p ur po rte d i nt eres t” in de nyin g t he ap pl ic at io n,

-3

-Trin it y Ch ur ch “ fai le d to id en ti fy an y va li d le ga l th eo ry un de r whi ch Mi ss ou ri wou ld

ne ed to sh ow t he ex is te nc e o f a co m pe ll in g i nt eres t.”

Trin it y Ch ur ch ap pe al s ev ery as pe ct of t he di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s, ex cep t t he

di sm is sa l of it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t free sp eech cl ai m. We r e v i e w th e di sm is sa l of a

co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m de no vo

. Dun ba r v. W el ls Farg o Ban k, N.A.,

70 9 F.3 d 12 54

, 1 2 5 6 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 13 ). W e rev ie w th e de ni al of le av e to am en d fo r
ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t w e r e v i e w de no vo le ga l co nc lu si on s un de rlyin g a
d et erm in at io n of fu ti li ty. In re Med tro ni c, In c., Sp rin t Fi de li s Lead s Pr o d s

. Li a b

. Lit ig ., 62 3 F .3d 12 00 , 12 08 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

II . The Fede ra l Co ns tit uti on al Cla ims

“ Mi ss ou ri ha s a lo ng hi st or y of m ai nt ai ni ng a ve ry hi gh wall be twee n ch ur ch

an d st at e.” Lue tk em ey er v. Kau fm an n, 36 4 F. Su pp

. 37 6, 38 3- 84 (W. D. Mo

. 19 73 ),
aff’d, 41 9 U.S. 88 8 (1 97 4)

. Two pr ov is io ns in th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on “ de cl ari ng

th at th ere sh al l be a se pa rat io n of ch ur ch an d st at e are no t on ly m or e ex pl ic it bu t m or e

res tri ct iv e th an th e Est ab li sh m en t Clau se of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on .” Pas te r

v

. Tu s s e y, 51 2 S.W .2d 97

, 10 1- 02 (Mo

. ba nc 19 74 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 41 9 U.S. 11 11
(1 9 75 ). Tho se pr ov is io ns , o ne of whi ch is at th e co re of th is di sp ut e, were in it ia ll y
ad op te d in 18 70 an d 18 75

. As re-a do pt ed in th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on of 19 45

, th ey

no w pro vi de :

Art. I, § 7. Tha t no m on ey sh al l ev er be ta ke n fro m th e pu bl ic tre as ur y , di rect ly or in d i r e c t l y, in ai d of an y ch ur ch

, se ct

, or de no m in at io n of
rel ig io n, or in ai d of an y pr ie st

, pr each er, m in is te r or te ach er th ereo f, as

su ch ; an d th at no pr efer e n ce sh al l be gi ve n to no r an y di sc riminat io n mad e a g ai ns t an y ch ur ch

, se ct

, or cree d of rel ig io n, or an y fo rm o f
rel ig io us fai th or wo rs hi p.

-4

-Art. IX, § 8. Neit he r th e g en eral ass em bl y , no r an y

co un ty, ci ty, to wn [et c.] s ha ll ev er m ak e an ap pr op ria ti on or pa y fro m an y pu bl ic fu nd
wha te ve r, an y th in g in ai d o f an y rel ig io us cree d, ch ur ch or se ct ari an
pu rp os e, or to he lp to su pp or t or su st ai n an y pr iv at e or pu bl ic sc ho ol

. . .
or ot he r in st it ut io n of le arn in g co nt ro ll ed by an y rel ig io us cree d, ch ur ch

or se ct ari an de no m in at io n wha te ve r; no r sh al l an y gr an t or do na ti on

. . .
ev er be m ad e by th e st a t e

. . . fo r an y rel ig io us cree d, ch ur ch

, or

se ct ari an pu rp os e wha te ve r. 2

Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s Co m

pl ai nt al le ge d th at

, by de nyin g its gr an t ap pli ca tio n so le ly

be cau se it is a ch ur ch

, DNR (i) vi ol at ed th e Free Ex erci se cl au se be cau se it

“ ta rg et [ed ] rel ig io n fo r di sp a r a t e t reat m en t” wit ho ut a co m pe ll in g go ve rn m en t

in te res t; (ii ) vi ol at ed th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se be cau se t h e de ni al “ was ho st il e to

rel ig io n” an d req ui red DNR “ to de te rm in e wha t is rel ig io us en ou gh ” to jus ti fy de ni al ;

an d (ii i) vi ol at ed th e Eq u a l P r o t ect io n Cl au se by di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t rel ig io us
le arn in g cen te rs an d da y care or ga ni zat io ns wit ho ut a co m pe ll in g go ve rn m en t

in te res t. Alt ho ug h Trin it y Ch ur ch co u c h ed th es e cl ai m s as an at ta ck on DNR’s

“ cu st om s, po li ci es an d pr act ic es ,” al l it s cl ai m s are pl ai nl y faci a l a t ta ck s on Arti cl e I, § 7, of th e Mi ss ou r i Co ns ti tu ti on , whi ch pr ov id es th at “ no m on ey sh al l ev er be

ta ke n fro m th e pu bl ic tre as ur y , di rect ly or in di rect ly, in ai d of an y ch ur ch ,” an d whi ch

was cit ed by D NR as th e so le ba si s fo r it s d en ia l.

Viewe d in th is li gh t, it is ap pa ren t th at Trin it y Ch ur ch se ek s an un pr eced en te d

ru li ng -- th at a s t a t e c o ns ti tu ti on vi ol at es th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d th e Equ al

Pro te ct io n Cl au se if it ba rs th e gr an t of pu bl ic fu nd s to a ch ur ch

. To pr ev ai l, Trin it y
Ch ur ch m

us t cl ear a fo rm id ab le if no t in su rm ou nt ab le hu rd l e , wha t ap pe ars to be

c o n t r o ll in g ad ve rs e pr eced en t. In Lue tk em ey er, a th ree- jud ge di st ric t co ur t was

co nv e n ed in th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri to co ns id er a cl ai m th at th e Fi rs t

The se two Sect io ns are co ns tru ed to ge th er to make up Mi ss ou ri’s 2

Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se

. See St

. Lou is Un i v

. v

. M a s on ic Tem pl e Ass ’n of St

. Lou is

, 22 0 S .W .3d 72 1, 7 25 (Mo . ban c 2 00 7)

.

-5

-Am en dm en t and th e Equ al Pro te ct io n clau se req ui red Mi ss ou ri t o p ro vi de th e sa m e

pu bl ic tra ns po rta ti on be ne fit s fo r th e pu pi ls of ch ur ch -rel at ed sc ho ol s as were be in g

p r ov id ed to tra ns po rt ch il dr en to pu bl ic sc ho ol s. 36 4 F. Su pp

. at 37 7. In d e n yi n g pl ai nt iff s i nju nc ti ve an d d am ag e rel ie f, th e m ajor it y ex pl ai ne d:

W e co nc lu de wit ho ut he si ta ti on th at t he lo ng es ta bl is he d

co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy of th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri, whi ch in si st s up on a de gr ee of se pa rat io n of ch ur ch an d st at e to pr ob ab ly a hi gh er de gr ee th an th at req ui red by th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, is in de ed a ‘com pe ll in g s t at e in te res t in th e reg u l a t i o n o f a su bjec t wit hi n th e St at e’s co ns ti tu ti on al

p o w e r ’

. . . Tha t in te res t, in ou r jud gm en t, sa ti sf ie s an y po ss ib le
in fri ng em en t o f th e Fre e Exe rci se cla us e o f th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t or of

an y ot he r pr oh ib it io n i n t he Co ns ti tu ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s.

* * * * *

The fact th at Mi ss ou ri ha s de te rm in ed to en fo rce a m or e st ric t

po li cy of ch ur ch an d st at e se pa rat io n t h a n t h a t req ui red by th e Fi rs t
Am en dm en t do es no t pr e s e nt an y su bs ta nt ia l fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al

qu es ti on

.

Id

. at 38 6 (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al ed to th e Su pr em e Co ur t

of th e Uni te d St at es

. The Co ur t su m m ari ly affi rm ed

. Two Ju st ic es di ss en te d, arg ui ng

th e Co ur t s h o u l d ha ve no te d pr ob ab le juri sd ic ti on an d se t th e cas e fo r arg um en t on

two qu es ti on s, whe th er th e di ffer en t tre at m en t of pu bl ic -s ch oo l an d pa ro ch ia l-s ch oo l

ch il dr en vi ol at ed eq ua l pr ot ect io n pr in ci pl es , an d whe th er th e arb it rary de ni al of a

ge ne ral pu bl ic se rv ic e m ad e th e S t a t e a n “adv ers ary” of rel ig io n. 41 9 U.S. at 89 0
(Whit e, J., d is se nt in g)

.

W he n th e Su pr em e Co ur t su m m ari ly affi rm s a lo wer fed eral co ur t, it s de ci si on

“ pr ev en t[s ] lo wer cou rts fro m co m in g t o o pp os it e co nc lu si on s o n t he pre ci se is su es

pr es en te d an d ne ces sa ril y de ci de d,” bu t th e Co ur t ha s affi rm ed on ly th e jud gm en t, no t

n e c e s s a r il y th e rat io na le of th e lo wer co ur t. Man de l v. Brad le y , 4 32 U.S. 1 73 , 1 7 6

-6

-(1 97 7)

. Here, whil e th e p aram et ers of t he Su pr em e Co ur t’s s um m ary affi rm an ce i n

Lue tk em ey er m ay no t be free fro m do ub t, gi ve n th e is su es ad dr es se d in th e di ss en t

fro m su m m ary affi rm an ce, we co nc lu de th at th e Co ur t ne cess ar ily de ci de d tha t Arti cl e I, § 7, of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on is n o t f a c i a l l y in va li d. Tha t co nc lu si on is

su pp or te d by th e Co ur t’s pr io r su m m ary affi rm an ce in Bru sc a v. St at e of Mo

. ex rel

. St at e Bd

. of Edu c., 33 2 F. Su pp

. 27 5, 27 9- 80 (E.D. Mo

. 19 71 ) (co nc lu di ng th at

Arti cl e IX, § 8, an d Mi ss ou ri st at ut es de nyin g pu bl ic fu nd s to se ct a r i a n sc ho ol s fo r
rel ig io us in st ru ct io n do no t vi ol at e th e Free Exe rci se or th e Equ al Pro te ct io n cl au se s)

, aff’d, 40 5 U.S. 10 50 (1 97 2) ; se e al so W he el er v. Barr era, 41 7 U.S. 40 2, 41 2 n.9

, 42 1-

22 , 42 6 (1 97 4)

.

Trin it y Ch ur ch req ue st s in jun ctive re lie f co m

pe lli ng Mi ss ou ri to pr ov id e gr an ts

di rect ly to ch ur ch es , fu nd in g th at is pr oh ib i t e d b y a pr ov is io n of th e Mi ss ou ri

Co ns ti tu ti on th at ha s be en a be dr oc k pr in ci pl e of st at e la w fo r ne arl y 15 0 y ears

. W it ho ut qu es ti on , a st at e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n is in va li d if it co nf li ct s wit h ei th er
rel ig io n cl au se of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, or wit h th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t’s Equ al

Pro te ct io n Cl au se

. W e al so reco gn iz e th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se juri sp ru de nc e ha s ev ol ve d rat he r dr a mat i cal ly i n th e fo rty years si nc e Lue tk em ey er

was de ci de d. Fo r ex am

pl e, it no w se em s rat he r cl ear th at Mi ss ou ri co ul d in cl ud e th e

Learn in g Cen te r’s p l ay gr ou nd in a no n- di sc riminat or y Scra p Tire gr an t pr og ram
wit ho ut vi ol at in g th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se

. Bu t th e is su e he re is no t wha t th e St at e
is co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm it te d to do

, bu t whe th er th e Free Exe rci s e C l a us e, th e

Est ab li sh m en t Cl a u s e , or th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se co mpe l Mi ss ou ri to pr ov id e

pu bl ic gr an t m on ey di rect ly to a ch ur ch

, co nt rav en in g a lo ng -s ta nd in g s ta te

co ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on th at is no t u ni qu e to Mi ss ou ri.

No Su pr em e Co ur t cas e, be fo re or aft er Lue tk em ey er, ha s gr an te d su ch rel ie f.

In de ed

, in Loc k e v

. D av ey , 54 0 U.S. 71 2 (2 00 4)

, th e Co ur t up he ld St at e of

W as hi ng to n st at ut es an d co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io ns th at ba rred pu bl ic sc ho la rs hi p ai d

to po st -s eco nd ary st ud en ts pu r s u in g a de gr ee in th eo lo gy. The Co ur t no te d th e

-7

-“ po pu la r up ris in gs ag ai ns t pr oc ur in g ta xp ay er fu nd s to su pp or t ch ur ch le ad ers , whi ch

was on e of th e ha ll m ark s of an ‘esta bl is he d’ rel ig io n.” Id

. at 72 2. In Loc ke

, “ th e li nk

be twee n go ve rn m en t fu nd s an d rel ig io us tra in in g [was ] br ok en by th e in de p e n d en t

a n d p riv at e ch oi ce of [s ch ol ars hi p] reci pi en ts ,” id

. at 71 9, pr om pt in g th e Co ur t t o

ex am in e care fu ll y th e “ rel at iv el y m in or bu rd en ” th e sc ho la rs hi p ex cl us io n pl aced on

st ud en ts ta ki ng de vo ti on al th eo lo gy co ur se s, id

. at 72 5. By co nt ras t, in th is cas e th ere
is no br eak i n t h e li nk

. Trin it y Ch ur ch se ek s to co m pe l th e di rect gr an t of pu bl ic

fu nd s to ch ur ch es , an ot he r of th e “ ha ll m ark s of an ‘esta bl is he d’ rel ig io n.” The refo re,
whi le th ere is act iv e acad em ic an d jud ic ia l de ba te ab ou t th e br ead th of th e de ci si on ,

we co nc lu de th at Loc ke rei nf or ces ou r de ci si on th at Lue tk em ey er is co nt ro ll in g

pr eced en t fo recl os in g Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s faci al at ta ck on Arti cl e I, § 7, of th e Mi ss ou ri

Co ns ti tu ti on

.

Ju st ic e Scal ia

, di ss en ti ng fo r hi m se lf an d Ju st ic e Tho m as in Loc ke

, art ic ul at ed

a co nt rary vie w of t he Fir st Am en dm en t’s re li gi on cla us es :

W he n th e St at e m ak es a pu bl ic be ne fit ge ne ral ly av ai la bl e, th at be ne fit
b e c om es pa rt of th e ba se li ne ag ai ns t whi ch bu rd en s on rel ig io n a r e

m eas ur ed ; an d whe n th e St at e wit hh ol ds th at b e n e f i t fro m so m e in di vi du al s s ol el y

on th e b as is of rel ig io n, it vi ol at es th e Fre e Exe rci se Cl au se no les s t ha n i f it ha d i m po se d a sp eci al tax

.

Id . at 7 26 -2 7. If t he Co ur t wer e to ad op t th is vi ew, an d if Jus ti ce Scali a’s refe ren ce

to wit hh ol di ng be ne fit s to “ in di vi du al s” were he ld to in cl ud e di rect pu bl ic be ne fit s

to ch ur ch es , th en Arti cl e I, § 7, of th e Mi ss ou ri C o ns ti tu ti on co ul d no t be va li dl y

ap pl ie d to de ny ch ur ch pa rti ci pa ti on in a ho st of pu bl ic ly-fun de d pr og ram s. Tha t m ay
be a lo gi cal co ns ti tu ti on al le ap in th e di rect io n th e Co ur t rece nt ly se em s to be go in g,
bu t it is a le ap of gr eat m ag ni tu de fro m th e Co ur t’s de ci si on s in Lue tk em ey er an d in

Loc ke

. In ou r vi ew, on ly t he Su pr em e Co ur t can mak e th at le ap

. As th e Co ur t ha s

of te n rem in de d us , a co ur t of ap pe al s “ sh ou ld fo ll ow th e cas e whi ch di rect ly co nt ro ls

, le av i n g t o t hi s Co ur t th e pr ero ga ti ve of ov erru li ng it s own de ci si on s.” Ago st in i v.

-8

-Fel to n, 52 1 U.S. 20 3, 23 7 (1 99 7) (an Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se de ci si on ). W e th eref or e

fo ll ow Lue tk em ey er an d th e m an y Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri de ci si on s co nc lu di ng

th at Arti cl e I

, § 7

, o f th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t co nf li ct wit h th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t o r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C la us e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n.

Fo r th es e reas on s, w e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y di sm is se d

Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch

rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. 3

Eve n if Lue tk em ey er were no t co nt ro ll in g, we se e li tt l e mer i t to Trin it y 3

Ch ur ch ’s co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts

, ba se d on ex is ti ng pr eced en t. The Su pr em e Co ur t i n Loc ke ex pr es sl y reco gn iz ed th at “ th ere are so m e st at e act io ns pe rm it te d by th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se bu t no t req ui red by th e Free Exe rci se Cl au se .” 54 0 U.S. at 71 9.

Unt il th e Co ur t ru le s ot he rwis e, th e di rect ex pe nd it ur e of pu bl ic fu nd s to ai d a ch ur ch
is a pa rad ig m ex am

pl e of th at type of st at e act io n. “ The re is no rel ev an t pr eced en t fo r

us in g [th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se ’s] ne ga ti ve pr oh ib it io n as a ba si s fo r ex te nd in g th e rig ht of a rel ig io us ly affi li at ed gr ou p to se cu re sta te su bs id ie s.” St ro ut v. Alba ne se , 17 8 F.3 d 57 , 6 4 (1 st Ci r.), cert . den ie d, 5 28 U.S. 93 1 (1 99 9) ; s ee Br on x Hou se ho ld
of Fai th v. Bd

. of Edu c. of Ci ty of N.Y., 75 0 F.3 d 18 4, 19 8 (2 d Ci r. 2 0 1 4 )

, cert

. de ni ed

, --- S. Ct

. ---, 20 15 W L 14 00 93 6 (20 15 ); Eul it t ex rel. E ul it t v. Mai ne , Dep t. of Edu c., 38 6 F.3 d 34 4, 35 5 (1 s t C i r

. 2 0 0 4 )

. DNR’s de ci si on to de ny th e gr an t

ap pl ic at io n be cau se Trin it y Ch ur ch is a “ ch ur ch ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of Arti cl e I, § 7,
of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on ha rd ly req ui red an ex ces si ve en ta ng le m ent w ith rel ig io n,

un li ke th e st at e st at ut e at is su e in Co lo rad o Ch ris ti an Uni v. v. W eav er, 53 4 F.3 d 12 45

, 12 50 -5 1 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (req ui rin g co ns id erat io n of fact or s to de te rm in e whe th er a

sc ho la rs hi p ap pl ic an t was in el ig ib le be cau se th e in st it ut io n of hi gh er ed uc at io n was

“ pe rv as iv el y

sec ta ria n” ).

As th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed

, in th e ab se nc e of a va li d Free Exe rci se cl ai m , Trin it y Chur ch ’s Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl ai m is go ve rn ed by rat io na l ba si s rev ie w. Loc ke

, 54 0 U.S. at 72 0 n.3

. The hi gh wall of se pa rat io n be twee n ch ur ch an d st at e crea te d by
Arti cl e I, § 7, is a hi st or ic an d su bs ta nt ia l St at e in te res t th at DNR was ob li ga te d to ob ey in ad m in is te rin g th e Sp are Tire gr an t pr og ram

. Thi s in te res t cl earl y sa ti sf ie s
rat io na l b as is rev ie w. See Lue tk em ey er, 3 64 F. Sup p. at 38 3- 84 an d c as es cit ed

.

-9

-II I. Th e Mis so uri Cons tit uti on al Cla im

Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s fif

th ca us e of act io n al le ge d th at th e DNR’s gr an t de ni al

vi ol at ed th e se co nd cl au se of Arti cl e I, § 7, whi ch fo rb id s “ an y di sc riminat io n m ad e

ag ai ns t an y ch ur ch ,” an d th a t gr an ti ng th e ap pl ic at io n wou ld no t ha ve vi ol at ed th e

fir st cl au se be cau se it wou ld no t ha ve be en “ in ai d of an y ch ur ch .” Tho ug h pl ead ed

la st

, th is was th e on ly cl ai m arg ue d at l en gt h by Trin it y Ch ur ch at th e he ari ng on
de fen da nt ’s m ot io n to di sm is s, an d it was th e le a d a r gu m en t in it s br ie f on ap pe al
(s eem in gl y an im

pl ic it ack no wled gm en t th e fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s are weak ).

Thi s in ve rs io n of th e th eo rie s pl ead ed di st ract ed th e di st ric t co ur t fro m a ve ry se rio us
is su e -- aft er di sm is si ng th e fed eral cl ai m s, sh ou ld th e co ur t ha ve de cl in ed to ex erci se

it s su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er a st at e la w cl ai m th at is ba se d on an im p o r t an t

pr ov is io n of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on an d tu rn s on th e pr op er in te rp ret at io n of rat he r

am bi gu ou s Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri pr eced en ts ? W e th in k th at qu es ti on sh ou ld

ha ve be en an swe red affi rm at iv el y , bu t we wil l no ne th el es s rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l o f th is cla im

on th e m eri ts

.

Und er Mi ss ou ri l aw, th e d is tri ct co ur t had juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th e st at e la w
cl ai m pl ead ed in th e in it ia l Co m pl ai nt be cau se whet he r Arti cl e I, § 7 , per m it s DNR

to de ny Scra p Tire Pro gr am gr an ts to al l ch ur ch ap pl ic an ts is an is su e of la w. See

Prem iu m St d. Farm

, In c. v. Lin co ln Twp., 94 6 S.W .2d 23 4, 23 7- 38 (Mo

. ba nc 19 97 )
(ex ha us ti on of ad m in is t rat iv e rem ed ie s is a juri sd ic ti on al is su e); Mo to r Co nt ro l
Sp eci al ti es , In c. v. Pet el ik

, 25 8 S.W .3d 48 2, 48 5- 86 (Mo

. App

. 20 08 ). Turn in g to th e

m eri ts

, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e two cl au se s of Arti cl e I, § 7, m us t be

in te rp ret ed in ha rm on y

. See Uni on Elec

. Co

. v. Dir. of R e v e n u e , 42 5 S.W .3d 11 8,

12 2 (Mo

. ba nc 20 14 ); W rin g v. Ci ty of Je ffer so n, 4 1 3 S.W .2d 29 2, 30 0 (Mo

. ba nc

19 67 ). The refo re , i f g ran ti ng Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s ap pl ic at io n wou ld ha ve co ns ti tu te d

“ ai d” to a ch ur ch pr oh ib it ed by th e fir st cl au se of Arti cl e I, § 7, th en de nyin g th e gr an t

was no t a di sc riminat or y act io n pr oh ib it ed by th e se co nd cl au se

. So th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y foc us ed on Trin it y

Ch ur ch ’s con te nt io n th at a Scra p Tire Pro gr am gra nt is

-1 0-no t “ ai d” wit hi n th e m ean in g of the fir st cl au se of Arti cl e I, § 7, beca us e it in vo lv es

a qu id pr o qu o, wit h th e ap pl ic an t un de rta ki ng ob li ga ti on s un de r th e Scra p Tire

Pro gr am in ex ch an ge fo r th e gr an te d fu nd s. On ap pe a l

, Tr i ni ty Ch ur ch arg ue s th e

co ur t er red in reject in g t hi s i nt erp ret at io n o f st at e la w.

Trin it y Ch ur ch ba se s it s co nt en ti on on th e reas on in g in two Su pr em e Co ur t of

Mi ss ou ri de ci si on s, Kin tz el e v. Ci ty of St

. Lou is

, 34 7 S.W .2d 69 5 (Mo

. ba nc 19 61 ),

whi ch Trin it y Ch ur ch di d no t c i te to th e di st ric t co ur t, an d Am eri can s Uni te d v.

Ro ge rs , 53 8 S.W .2d 71 1 (Mo

. ba nc ), cert . den ie d, 4 29 U.S. 10 29 (19 76 ), whi ch th e
di st ric t co ur t de sc rib ed as “ gr os sl y m is rep res en te d” by Trin it y Ch ur ch

. Co nc lu di ng

th at th e qu id pr o q uo ex cep ti on to Arti cl e I, § 7’s, pr oh ib it io n was no t su pp or te d by

an y Mi ss ou ri c as e, th e co ur t i ns te ad rel ie d on th e m an y Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri

de ci si on s th at “ st ric tl y in te rp ret ed [Art ic le I] Sect io n 7 to pr oh ib it pu bl ic fu nd in g of

rel ig io us in st it ut io ns ” in or de r to m ai nt ai n “ t he hi gh er wall of se pa rat io n be twee n
ch ur ch an d st a t e p r e s en t in th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on .” See Pas te r, 51 2 S.W .2d at

10 4- 10 5 (in va li da ti ng st at ut e req ui rin g pu bl ic sc ho ol bo ard s to pr ov id e te xt bo ok s to

pr iv at e sc ho ol st ud en ts ); Bere gh or n v. Reo rg

. Sch

. Dis t. No. 8, 26 0 S.W .2d 57 3, 58 2-

83 (Mo

. 19 53 ); McVe y v. Hawki ns , 25 8 S.W .2d 92 7, 93 3- 34 (Mo

. 19 53 ) (en joi ni ng

us e of pu bl ic s c h o o l bu se s to tra ns po rt st ud en ts to rel ig io us sc ho ol s) ; Harfs t v.

Hoe ge n, 16 3 S.W .2d 60 9, 61 3- 14 (Mo

. 19 41 ) (en joi ni ng us e of pu bl ic sc ho ol fu nd s

fo r th e te ach in g of rel ig io n an d fai th at a pa ro ch ia l sc ho ol th at was ta ke n in to th e

pu bl ic sch oo l s y st em ); a cco rd Luet ke m ey er, 3 64 F. Su pp . a t 3 83 -8 4 (u ph ol di ng th e

St at e’s refu sa l t o p ro vi de tra ns po rta ti on to ch ur ch -s po ns or ed sc ho ol s) ; Bru sc a, 33 2

F. Su pp

. at 27 9- 80 (th e St at e may d e n y f un ds to se ct ari an sc ho ol s fo r rel ig io us

in st ru ct io n)

.

Bas ed on th es e de ci si on s, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t h a t Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s

st at e la w cl ai m un de r th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on m us t be di sm is se d be cau se it s “ own pl ead in gs de m on st rat e th at fu nd s fro m [DNR] in th e fo rm of th e Scra p Tire Pro gr am

wou ld ai d th e Ch ur ch an d it s Mi ni st ry Learn i n g Cen te r wit hi n th e m ean in g of

-1 1-Mi ss ou ri la w.” W e ag ree wit h th is as se ss m en t of ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri

wou ld de ci de th is cl ai m

. In Kin tz el e, pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at a su bs id iz ed sa le of la nd
by th e St at e t o St

. Lou is Uni ve rs it y co ns ti tu te d an un co ns ti tu ti on al us e of pu bl ic

fu nd s in ai d of a pr iv at e se ct ari an sc ho ol

. The Co ur t de cl in ed to in va li da te th e sa le

,

co nc lu di ng th at

, be cau se Mi ss ou ri la w au th or iz ed “ sa le by ne go ti at io n at fai r va lu e,”

an d th e St at e tri ed co m

pe ti ti ve bi dd in g an d th erea fte r so ld th e la nd to SLU at ne arl y
twi ce th e hi gh es t bi d, “ pl ai nt iff s’ co nt en ti on of il le ga l

. . . su bs id y fro m pu bl ic fu nd s

can no t be su st ai ne d.” 34 7 S.W .2d at 70 0- 70 1. Thi s de ci si o n i n n o w a y su pp or ts

Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s cla im

th at a Scra p Ti re Pro gr am gra nt is no t “ ai d.”

In Ameri can s Uni te d, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri up he ld a st at ut e

p r ov id in g tu it io n gr an ts to st ud en ts at ap pr ov ed pu bl ic an d pr iv at e co ll eg e s

. Th e

st at ut e was in va li da te d by th e tri al co ur t, ap pl y in g Arti cl e I, § 7, an d Arti cl e IX, § 8.

The St at e ap pe al ed

. Not in g th at “ [a]n act of th e le gi sl at ur e is pr es um ed to be va li d

an d wil l no t be de cl ared un co n s t i t u t i on al un le ss it cl earl y an d un do ub te dl y

co nt rav en es so m e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n,” 53 8 S.W .2d at 71 6, th e Co ur t co nc lu de d

it co ul d no t “ wit h co nf

id en ce de cl are th at th e st at ut or y pr og ram ” cl earl y co nt rav en ed

th es e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io ns be c a u se “ th e pa ro ch ia l sc ho ol cas es wit h whi ch th e

co ur t ha s de al t in th e pa st in vo lv ed co m pl et el y di ffer en t types of ed uc at io na l en ti ti es

th an th e co ll eg es an d un iv ers it ie s he rei n in vo lv ed .” Id at 72 1- 22

. The de fen da nt s’

qu id pro qu o a rg um en t was no te d b ut no t ad op te d. Id . at 7 21

.

Am eri can s Uni te d de m on st rat es th at Arti cl e I, § 7, wil l be di ffi cu lt to ap pl y in

so m e cas es , pa rti cu la rly whe n an ex pe nd it ur e au th or iz ed by st at e st at ut e is ch al le ng ed

as be y on d th e St at e ’s c on st it ut io na l au th or it y

. Bu t th at de ci si on do es no t su pp or t

Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s cl ai m to affi rm at iv e rel ie f in th is cas e. In up ho ld in g th e ch al le ng ed

pr og ram , th e Co ur t reaf

fir m ed th at th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on is “ m or e res tri ct iv e th an

th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on in pr oh ibi tin g th e ex pe nd it ur es

of pu bl ic fu nd s in a m an ne r te nd in g to ero de th e ab so lu te se pa rat io n of ch ur ch an d

st at e,” an d it no te d th at th e pr og ram was “ de si gn ed an d im pl em en te d fo r th e be ne fit s

-1 2-of

th e st ud en ts , no t o f th e in st it ut io ns , an d th at th e award s are m ad e to th e st ud en ts

,

no t to th e in st it ut io ns

. The le gi sl at iv e pu rp os e in no wis e in cl ud es su pp or ti ng ai di ng

or su st ai ni ng eit he r pu bl ic or p riv at e ed uc at io na l i ns ti tu ti on s.” Id . at 7 20

.

W e affi rm th e di st ric t c o ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e st at e la w cl ai m un de r th e

Mi ss ou ri C on st it ut io n i n Tri ni ty Chu rch ’s ori gi na l Co m pl ai nt

.

IV. The Mot io n to Am end

Fo ll owi ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l or de r, Trin it y Ch ur ch fil ed a m ot io n to

reco ns id er th at in cl ud ed a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d it s Co m pl ai nt

. The pr op os ed

Am en de d Co m

pl ai nt ad de d a fact pa ra g r a p h al le gi ng th at th e DNR ha d pr ev io us ly

awa r de d Scra p Tire Pro gr am gr an ts to at le as t fif te en ot he r rel ig io us or ga ni zat io ns

. It al so ad de d a pa rag rap h to th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se cau se of act io n al le gi ng th at

DNR “ ha s al lo wed ot he r si m il arl y -s it ua te d rel ig io us o r g a ni zat io ns to pa rti ci pa te in

th e Scra p Tire Pro gr am .” A l l ot he r al le ga ti on s in th e ni ne ty-sev en -p arag rap h

Co m pl ai nt were un ch an ge d. Trin it y Ch ur ch at ta ch ed as an ex hi bi t a do cu m en t da te d

Octo be r 1 9

, 20 10

, th at li st ed “ Pri or Rec ip ie nt s of Scra p Tire Su rfac e Mat eri al

Gran ts .” The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot i o n b e c a u se Trin it y Ch ur ch fai le d to

pr ov id e an y

ex pl an at io n fo r fai li ng to am en d p rio r to di sm is sa l o f it s ac ti on

.

“ Po st -d is m i s s a l m ot io ns to am en d are di sf av or ed .” Med tro ni c, 62 3 F.3 d at

12 08

. W hi le a po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n m ay be gra nt ed if ti m el y req ue st ed

, “ in te res ts

of fin al it y di ct at e th at le av e to am en d sh ou ld be le ss free ly av ai la bl e aft er a fin al or de r

ha s be en en te red .” U.S. ex rel

. Ro op v. Hy po gu ard USA, In c., 55 9 F.3 d 81 8, 82 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). Num ero us cas es ha ve rul ed th at un ex cu se d del ay is su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify

de ni al of po st -d is m is sa l leav e to am en d. Unit ed Sta te s v. Mas k of Ka-Nefer- Nefer

, 75 2 F .3d 73 7, 7 43 -4 4 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ), an d c as es cit ed

.

-1 3-On ap pe al

, Trin it y Ch ur ch fo r th e m os t pa rt ig no res th is well -es ta bl is he d la w,

si m pl y di st in gu is hi ng th e cas es ci te d by th e di st ric t co ur t be cau se Trin it y Ch ur ch was

no t “ gi ve n an y warn in g th at it ne ed ed to am en d it s pl ead in gs .” The br ie fs on ap pe al

as se rt th at Trin it y Ch ur ch le arn ed in di s c o v e r y th at ot he r rel ig io us en ti ti es ha d

rece iv ed gr an ts

, bu t co un se l ad m it te d at or al arg um en t th at Trin it y Ch ur ch ob ta in ed

th e Octo be r 20 10 li st in g at ta ch ed to th e pr op os ed Am en de d Co m pl ai nt fro m th e DNR

web si te

, whe re it was do ub tl es s av ai la bl e whe n Trin it y Ch ur ch fil ed it s Co m pl ai nt in

Ja nu ary 20 13

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng th at

Trin i t y Ch ur ch fai le d to pr ov id e a va li d reas on fo r it s fai lu re to am en d pr io r to

di sm is sa l.

The di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e fu ti li ty ru li ng is m or e pr ob le m at ic an d warra nt s

de no vo co ns id erat io n. The pr op os ed am en de d pl ead in g di d no t al te r th e al le ga ti on s

in th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t ca us es of act io n bas ed on th e Fre e Exe rci se Cla us e an d t he

Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se ; it on ly al le ge d a di ffer en t type of di sc riminat io n vi ol at in g th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se , d is cri m in at io n be twee n “ si m il arl y si tu at ed rel ig io us

or ga ni zat io ns .” Thu s, whe n Trin it y Ch ur ch arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t th at it s ne wly

di sc ov ered ev id en ce su pp or te d th e cl ai m th at DNR’s gr an t ap pl ic at io n de ni al “ la ck s

a co m pe ll in g in te res t,” th e di st ric t co ur t was rig ht to ob se rv e th at th is ad de d no th in g

to th e or ig in al cl ai m s be cau se , in th e ab se nc e of a va li d Free Exe rci se or

Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se cl ai m , th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se cl ai m w as su bjec t to rat io na l

ba si s re vi ew an d n o c om

pe ll in g i nt eres t n eed be sh own

.

The re is a pr ob le m lu rk in g he re, on e th at was cam ou fla ge d by Trin it y Ch ur ch ’s

pr im ary co nt en ti on th at Arti cl e I, § 7, vi ol at es th e fed eral an d s ta te co ns ti tu ti on s b y

m an da ti ng th at ch ur ch es be ex cl ud ed fro m th e Scra p Tire Pro gr am

. The pr ob le m is

th at th es e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s ta ke on an en ti rel y ne w c o mp le xi on if DNR is

award in g Scra p Tire gr an ts to so m e ch ur ch es , b ut no t to ot he rs

. I f i nt en ti on al , t ha t

wou ld be a cl ea r v i o l a t i on of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, an d no do ub t of th e Mi ss ou ri

Co ns ti tu ti on as well

. See, e.g ,, Lar s o n v

. Vale nt e, 45 6 U.S. 22 8, 24 6 (1 98 2) (“ No

-1 4-St at e can pa ss la ws whi ch ai d on e rel ig io n or th at pr efer on e rel ig io n ov er an ot he r”);

W ai te s v. W ai te s, 56 7 S.W .2d 32 6, 33 3 (Mo

. ba nc 19 78 ) (“ Any su gg es ti on th at a st at e jud ic ia l of

fic er [was ] fav or in g o r te nd in g to fav or on e rel ig io us pe rs ua si on ov er

an ot he r

. . . wou ld be in to le rab le to ou r o r g a n i c l a w”). If th e pr op os ed Am en de d

Co m pl ai nt pl au si bl y pl ead ed th is dr am at ic al ly ne w th eo ry , di d th e di st ric t co ur t ab us e

it s di s c r e t i o n i n fai li ng to gr an t le av e to am en d, ev en if Trin it y Ch ur ch fai le d to

cl earl y art ic ul at e th e th eo ry ? W e co nc lu de no t, fo r two di st in ct bu t rela te d reas on s.

Fi rs t, “ a di st ric t co ur t do es no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n refu si ng to al lo w

am en dm en t o f pl ead in gs to ch an ge th e th eo ry of a cas e if th e am en dm en t i s o ffer ed

aft er su m m ary jud gm en t h a s b e en gr an te d ag ai ns t th e pa rty, an d no va li d reas on is

sh own fo r th e fai lu re to pr es en t th e ne w th eo ry at an earl ie r ti m e.” Lit tl efi el d v. Ci ty

of A f to n, 78 5 F.2 d 59 6, 61 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. In Lit tl efi el d, we

affi rm ed th e de ni al of le av e to am en d a di sm is se d § 19 83 du e pr oc es s act io n to as se rt

a ne w eq ua l pro te ct io n clai m

. Id

. at 60 9. Tha t is di rect ly an al og ou s to th e si tu at io n
he re. The fact s wer e at ha nd to ass ert th is na rro wer t he or y in th e in it ia l Co m

pl ai nt

, bu t Trin it y Ch ur ch ch os e no t to do so

. “ The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in co nc lu di ng [th is ] ta ct ic al ch oi c e d i d n o t de m on st rat e di li ge nc e or go od cau se .”

Mo rri so n Ent s., L.L.C. v. Drav o Co rp ., 63 8 F.3 d 59 4, 61 1 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2

S. Ct . 24 4 (2 01 1)

.

Se c on d, th e ne w th eo ry we ha ve id en ti fie d wou ld si gn ifi can tl y al te r th e

la wsu it ’s pr oc ed ur al la nd sc ap e. Und er th e ne w th e o r y, b o t h th e fed eral an d st at e

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s wou ld tu rn on th e fact ba se s fo r DNR’s al le ge dl y di sc riminat or y

tre at m en t o f si m il arl y

si tu at ed rel ig io us or ga ni zat io ns , no t on a Co ns ti tu ti on -d riv en

“ po li cy ” of no t m ak in g an y gr an ts to ch ur ch es

. Fo r th e fed e r al cl ai m s, th is rai se s a

s eri ou s qu es ti on of wha t is cal le d Pu ll m an ab st en si on -- “ fed eral co ur ts sh o u l d 4

ab st ai n fro m d e c i s i on whe n di ffi cu lt an d un se tt le d qu es ti on s of st at e la w m us t be

Deri ve d fr om

Rai lro ad Co m

m ’n v. Pu ll m an Co ., 31 2 U.S. 4 96 (19 41 ). 4

-1 5-res ol ve d be fo re a su bs ta nt ia l fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on can be de ci de d.” Hawai i

Hou si ng Aut h. v. M id ki ff, 4 67 U.S. 22 9, 2 36 (19 84 ); s ee Be av ers v. Ark . S ta te Bd

. of Den ta l Exa m ’rs, 15 1 F.3 d 83 8, 84 0- 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). Here, a st at e co ur t wou ld

be in th e be st po si ti on to de ci de th e “ di ffi cu lt an d un se tt le d” qu es ti on of ho w Arti cl e I, § 7, an d ot he r pr ov is io ns of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on an d st at ut es ap pl y to DNR’s

fact -b as ed de ci si on s whe th er to award Scr ap T ir e Pr ogr am gr an ts to pa rti cu la r ch ur ch

rel at ed ap pl ic an ts

. And st at e co ur t re so lu ti on of t ha t qu es ti on wou ld li ke ly m oo t or

res ol ve , an d m os t cert ai nl y wou ld affe ct

, a fed eral co ur t’s res ol ut io n of th e
subs ta nti al

, la rg ely ov erl ap pi ng Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl ause iss ue s.

Fo r th e st at e la w cl ai m , th e ne w th eo ry ap pe ars to rai se se rio us juri sd ic ti on an d

v e n u e is su es un de r th e Mi ss ou ri Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act, Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 53 6.0 10 et se q. See Mo to r Co nt ro l Sp eci a l t i e s , 25 8 S.W .3d at 48 5- 87

. The se
is su es wou ld be st be res ol ve d by a st at e co ur t, fu rth er su pp or ti ng Pu ll m an ab st en ti on

. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , ev en if th e pr op os ed Am en de d Co mp l a i n t pl ead ed a ne w
th eo ry of rel ie f th at was no t en ti rel y fu ti le

, th e di st ri c t c o u r t d i d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n i n d en y in g a n u nt im el y req ue st to fun da m en ta ll y alt er t he li ti ga ti on

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt a nd di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

Trin it y Lut he ran Ch ur ch (“ Trin it y Lut he ran ”) ap pl ie d fo r a g ran t t hr ou gh th e

Learn in g Cen te r, a da y care an d pr es ch oo l th a t Trin it y Lut he ran ru ns

. Thi s gr an t

wou ld al lo w th e Learn in g Cen te r to m ak e it s pl ay gr ou nd sa fer by swa pp in g th e gr av el

th at co ve rs it fo r a ru bb er su rfac e m ad e fro m recycled ti res

. The Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t

of Natu ral Res ou rces (“ th e Dep art m en t” ), whi ch ad m in is te rs th is gr an t pr og ram ,

acce pt ed Trin i ty Lut he ran ’s ap pl ic at io n an d ran ke d it fif th ou t of th e fo rty-fou r

ap pl ic at io ns fro m

th at y ear. Th e Dep art m en t ap pr ov ed fo ur te en gr an t ap pl ic at io ns , bu t Trin it y Lut he ran ’s was no t am on g th em

. Rel y in g s o l e l y o n t he Mi ss ou ri

-1 6-Co ns ti tu ti on ’s pr oh ib it io n on us in g pu bl ic fu nd s t o a i d a ch ur ch

, Mo

. Co ns t. art

. I,

§ 7, th e Dep art m en t de ni ed Trin it y Lut he ran ’s gr an t ap pl ic at io n. Thu s , bu t fo r th e

fa c t t h a t th e Learn in g Cen te r was ru n by a ch ur ch

, it wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a pl ay gr ou nd -s ur faci ng gr an t. W he re, as he re, ge ne ral ly av ai la bl e fu nd s are wit hh el d

so le ly on th e ba si s of rel ig io n, th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Lo cke v. Dav ey , 54 0

U.S. 71 2 (2 00 4)

, go ve rn s cl ai m s br ou gh t un de r th e Free Exe rci se Cl au se of th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t. App lying th e care fu l ba la nc e st ru c k by Lo cke

, I wou ld co nc lu de th at

Trin it y Lut he ran ha s su ffi ci en tl y pl ed a vi ol at io n of th e Free Exe rci se Cl au se as well

as a de riv at iv e cl ai m

un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C la us e.

The co ur t att em

pt s to im po se a ba rri er to ful l con si de rat io n of Lo cke

. Trin it y

Lut he ran , th e co ur t co nc lu de s, ch al le ng es th e faci al va li di ty of Arti cl e I, § 7 of th e

Mi s s o u r i Co ns ti tu ti on by req ue st in g a ru li ng th at “ a st at e co ns ti tu ti on vi ol at es th e

Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se if it ba rs th e gr an t of pu bl ic fu nd s

to a ch ur ch .” Ant e at 5. By fram in g Trin it y Lut he ran ’s cl ai m th is br oa dl y , th e co ur t

av oi ds fu ll y gr ap pl in g wit h Lo cke by m erel y po in ti ng to an in st an ce i n whi ch th is

st at e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n ha s be en up he ld

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sa le rn o , 48 1 U.S.

73 9, 7 4 5 (1 98 7) (req ui rin g a pl ai nt iff rai si ng a faci al at ta ck to sh ow “ no se t of

ci rcu m st an ces ” u nd er wh ic h a pro vi si on wou ld be va li d)

. The co ur t co nc lu de s t ha t

th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s su m

m ary affi rm an ce in Lu et

kemey er v. Ka uf

man n , 36 4 F. Su pp

. 37 6 (W. D. Mo

. 19 73 ), af

f’d

, 41 9 U.S. 88 8 (1 97 4)

, a cas e th at co nc ern ed th e se pa rat e
is su e o f bu si ng , id

. at 37 7, i s o ne su ch ap pl ic at io n. 5

Bu t Trin it y Lut he ran do es no t m ou nt th e ex pa ns iv e faci al ch al le ng e t h a t th e

co ur t at tri bu te s to it

. Trin it y Lut he ran tri es to br in g an a s

- a p p l ie d ch al le ng e; th e

co m pl ai nt sa y s s o n um ero us ti m es

. Howev er, det erm in in g whet he r a co ns ti tu ti on al

The Dep art m en t di d no t ci te Lu et kemey er in it s ap pe al br ie f. By th e co u r t ’s 5

reas on in g, th e Dep art m en t’s fai lu re to rai se th is arg um en t (m uc h le ss or de r it fir st in
it s br ie f) se rv es as “ se em in gl y an im pl ic it ack no w l ed ge m en t” th at th is arg um en t is

“ weak .” Ant e at 10

.

-1 7-ch al le ng e is pu rel y as -ap pl ie d, pu rel y faci al

, o r s o m ewh ere in be twee n tu rn s on

whe th er t he pl ai nt iff ’s “ cl ai m an d t he rel ie f th at wou ld fol lo w . . . reac h b ey on d t he

pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of th e[] pl ai nt iff [].” Doe v. Reed

, 56 1 U.S. 18 6, 19 4 (2 01 0)

. If th ey do

, th e cl a i m i s f aci al bu t on ly “ to th e ex te nt of th at reac h.” Id

. W he n

an al y zi ng a cl ai m an d th e rel ie f th at wou ld f o l lo w, a co ur t sh ou ld “ co ns tru e a pl ai nt iff ’s ch al le ng e, if po ss ib le

, to be as -ap pl ie d.” Am. Fed ’n of St at e, Cn ty

. & Mun

. Emps

. Co un ci l 79 v. Sc ot t

, 71 7 F.3 d 85 1, 86 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 13 ), cer t. de ni ed

, 57 2 U.S. - --, 13 4 S . C t. 18 77 (2 01 4)

. Trin it y Lut he ran , a s th e co ur t ack no wled ge s,

fram es it s ch al le ng e as an at ta ck on th e Dep art m en t’s “ cu st o ms , p o l i ci es , an d

pr act ic es .” And Trin it y Lut he ran sp eci fi c a l l y req ue st s a de cl arat io n th at th e Dep art m en t’s den ia l of its gr an t app li cat io n was un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Trin it y Lut he ran

al so sp eci fic al ly req ue st s in jun ct iv e rel ie f pr oh ib it in g th e Dep art m en t fro m
di s c r im in at in g ag ai ns t it in fu tu re gr an t ap pl ic at io ns

. Id

. at 86 2 (“ W e lo ok to th e

sc op e of th e rel ie f req ue st ed to de te rm in e whe th er a ch al le ng e is faci al or as -ap pl ie d

in na tu re.”)

. Thi s cl ai m an d rel ie f on ly im pl ic at e Trin it y Lut he ran

. Se e Doe

, 56 1 U.S.

at 19 4. Co ns eq ue nt ly, Trin it y Lut he ran do es no t co nt en d t h a t Arti cl e I, § 7 of th e

Mi ss ou ri C on st it ut io n i s u nc on st it ut io na l i n a ll of i ts ap pl ic at io ns

.

Th i s b r i n g s m e to Lo cke

. In th e face of a Free Exe rci se ch al le ng e, th e Co ur t

up he ld a co ll eg e sc ho la rs hi p pr og ram th at pr ev en te d st ud en ts fro m us in g th e

sc ho la rs hi p to pu rs ue a de gr ee in de vo ti on al th eo lo gy, a co ur se of st ud y th at th e co ur t

ch arac te riz ed as “ ak in to a rel ig io us cal li ng as well as an acad em ic pu rs ui t.” 54 0 U.S.

a t 71 5, 72 1, 72 5. The Co ur t be ga n wit h th e pr op os it io n th at “ th ere ar e s o me s t a t e

act io ns pe rm it te d by th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se bu t no t req ui red by th e Free Exe rci se
Cl au se .” Id

. at 71 9. Bec au se th e “ St at e’s di sf av or of rel i gi on (if it can be cal le d

th at )” in pr oh ib it in g reci pi en ts fro m us in g th e sc ho la rs hi p to m ajor in de vo ti on al

th eo lo gy “ is of a far m il de r ki nd ,” th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e sc ho la rs hi p pr og ram

was no t pr es um

pt iv el y un co ns ti tu ti o n a l

. I d. at 72 0. In up ho ld in g th e pr og ram , t he

Co ur t fou nd th at it “ go es a lo ng way to ward in cl ud in g re li gi on in it s b en efi ts ”—f or

ex am pl e, by al lo win g reci pi en ts to at te nd pe rv as iv el y rel ig io us sc ho ol s th at are

-1 8-accr ed it ed an d to ta ke de vo ti on al -th eo lo gy co ur se s. Id

. at 72 4- 25

. To th e Co ur t, th is

“ rel at iv el y

m in or bu rd en ” was jus ti fie d b y a “ hi st or ic an d s ub st an ti al st at e in te res t”

of no t fu nd in g “ an es se nt ia ll y rel ig io us en de av or .” Id

. at 72 1, 72 5. Thi s in te res t, th e

Co ur t ex pl ai ne d, was ro ot ed in ou r na ti on ’s hi st or y of “ po pu la r up ris in gs ag ai ns t

pr oc ur in g ta xp ay er f

u nd s to su pp or t ch ur ch le ad ers ” as well as th e fo un di ng -era
de ci si on s of m an y st at es to “ pl ace[ ] in th ei r co ns ti tu ti on s fo rm al pr oh ib it io ns ag ai ns t

us in g ta x fu nd s to su pp or t th e m in is try.” I d. at 72 1- 23

. Co ns id eri ng th is “ hi st or ic

an d su bs ta nt ia l st at e in te res t” al on gs id e th e “rel at iv el y m in or bu rd en ,” th e Co ur t

fo un d n o v io la ti on of t he Free Exer ci se Cla us e. Id. at 72 5.

Lo cke di d no t le av e st at es wit h un fet te red di sc ret io n to ex cl ud e th e rel ig io us

fro m ge ne ral ly av ai la bl e pu bl ic be ne fit s. To th e co nt rary, Ch ie f Ju st ic e Reh nq ui st ’s

op in io n fo r se ve n m em

be rs of th e Co ur t was care fu l to ack no wled ge it s pa ram et ers

. Se e id

. at 71 9, 72 5 (s ta ti ng th at “ so m e” act io n s are pe rm it te d by th e Est ab li sh m en t

Cl au se bu t no t req ui red by th e Free Exe rci se Cl au se an d ex p la in in g th at “ [i]f an y

ro om ex is ts be twee n th e two Rel ig io n Cl au se s, it m us t b e h e r e ” )

. “ The [ Lo cke ]

op in io n th us su gg es ts

, ev en if it do es no t ho ld

, th at th e St at e’s la ti tu de to di sc riminat e

ag ai ns t reli gi on is co nf

in ed to cert ai n ‘ hi st or ic an d su bs ta nt ia l sta te in te res t[s ], ’ an d

do es no t ex te nd to th e who le sa le ex cl us io n of rel ig io us in st it ut io ns an d th ei r st ud en ts

fro m ot he rwis e ne ut ral an d ge ne ra lly av ai la bl e go ve rn m en t su pp or t.” Co lo

. Ch ri st ia n

Uni v. v. W

ea ver , 53 4 F.3 d 12 45

, 12 55 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (Mc Co nn el l, J.) (al te rat io n in

or ig i n a l ) ( c i t at io n om it te d) (q uo ti ng Lo cke

, 54 0 U.S. at 72 5)

. Lo cke “ su gg es ts th e

ne ed fo r ba la nc in g in te res ts : it s ho ld in g th at ‘m in or bu rd en [s ]’ an d ‘m il de r’ fo rm s of

‘dis fav or ’ are to le rab le in se rv ic e of ‘his to ric an d su bs ta nt ia l st at e in te res t[s ]’ im pl ie s

th at m ajor bu rd en s an d cat eg or ic al ex cl us i o n s fro m pu bl ic be ne fit s m ig ht no t be

pe rm it te d in se rv ic e of l es se r or le ss lo ng -es ta bl is he d go ve rn m en ta l en ds .” Id

. at

12 55 -5 6 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Lo cke

, 54 0 U.S. at 72 0, 72 5)

. Si m pl y pu t,

th e Lo cke Co ur t “ in di cat ed th at th e St at e’s la ti tu de wit h res pe ct to fu nd in g de ci si on s

ha s l im it s.” Id

. at 12 55

.

-1 9-App lying th e ba la nc in g of in te res ts co nt em pl at ed by L o c k

e , I co nc lu de th at

Trin i t y Lu t h e ran ha s su ffi ci en tl y pl ed a Free Exe rci se vi ol at io n. The di sf av or of

rel ig io n he re is m or e pr on ou nc ed th an in Lo cke

. The st ud en t in Lo cke co ul d us e hi s

sc ho la rs hi p to at te nd a pe rv as iv el y rel ig io us sc ho ol th at w a s a c c r e di te d an d to ta ke

co ur se s in de vo ti on al th eo lo gy th ere. And a p e r v as iv el y rel ig io us sc ho ol th at

rece iv ed sc ho la rs hi p m on ey ev en co ul d req ui re it s st ud en ts t o t a k e de vo ti on al

th eo lo gy cl as se s. 54 0 U.S. at 72 4- 25

. The pr og ram , as th e Co ur t pu t it

, wen t “ a lo ng

way to ward in cl ud in g re li gi on in it s b en efi ts .” Id

. at 72 4. The sa m e can no t be sai d

he re. Trin it y Lut he ran ha s pl ed th at th e Dep art m en t cat eg or ic al ly pr oh ib it ed th e

Learn in g C en te r fro m

rece iv in g a pl ay gr ou nd -s ur faci ng gr an t be cau se it is run by a

ch ur ch

. Thi s bl an ke t pr oh ib it io n is di ffer en t in ki nd fro m th e di sf av or of rel ig io n th at

was pr es en t in Lo cke

. W he reas t h e L o c k e pr og ram ex cl ud ed rel ig io us st ud y whi le

al so in cl ud in g it

, id

. at 72 4- 25

, th e Dep art m en t ha s en ti rel y ex cl ud ed th e Learn in g

Cen te r fro m rece iv in g a pl ay gr ou nd -s ur faci ng gr an t. Mu ch li ke th e Ten th Ci rcu it

, I

read Lo cke to im

po se so m e bo un ds on su ch a “ who le sa le ex c l u si on of rel ig io us

in st it ut io ns an d th ei r st ud en ts fro m ot he rwis e ne ut ra l an d ge ne ral ly av ai la bl e

go ve rn m en t s up po rt.” Co lo . Chr is ti an , 53 4 F .3d at 1 25 5.

The Dep art m en t’s reas on fo r si ng li ng ou t th e Learn in g Cen te r di ffer s fro m th e

hi st or ic an d su bs ta nt ia l st at e in te res t in Lo cke

, whe re th e st at e so ug ht to av oi d pa y in g

fo r th e tra in in g of cl erg y , “ an es se nt ia ll y rel ig io us e n d eav or .” 54 0 U.S. at 72 1- 23

. The sh eer rel ig io si ty of th is act iv it y le d th e co ur t to rem ark th at “ we can th in k of few

area s in whi ch a St at e’s an ti es ta bl is hm en t in te res ts co m e m or e in to pl ay .” Id

. at 72 2.

It is tru e th at th e Dep art m en t’s in te res t in en fo rci ng Art i c l e I, § 7 of th e Mi ss ou ri

Co ns ti tu ti on is hi st or ic in th e se ns e th at th is pr ov is io n is lo ng st an di ng

. Bu t th e st at e’s

in te res t i n L o c k

e tra ced to co nc ern s th at were sp eci fic to pa y in g fo r tra in in g th e
cl erg y

. Id

. at 72 2- 23

. The Co ur t was un eq ui vo cal ab ou t th is po in t: “ [T]he on ly

in te res t at i s s ue he re is th e St at e’s in te res t in no t fu nd in g th e rel ig io us tra in in g of

cl erg y .” Id

. at 72 2 n.5

. Here, by co nt ras t, th e Dep art m en t se ek s to en fo rce a ge ne ral

pr oh ib it io n on ai d to a ch ur ch th at is in no way sp eci fic to th e pl ay gr ou nd -s ur faci ng

-2 0-gr an t pr og ram

. Thi s cas e th eref or e la ck s th e co rres po nd en ce be twee n th e pa st an d th e Dep art m en t’s pr es en t in te res t th at th e Co ur t fo un d si gn ifi can t in Lo cke

. Cf

. id

. (“ Not hi ng in o u r o p i n i o n su gg es ts th at th e St at e m ay jus ti fy an y in te res t th at it s ‘phi lo so ph ic al pr efer en ce’ co mm an ds .”); McDa ni el v. Pat y , 43 5 U.S. 61 8, 62 8- 29
(1 97 8) (p lu ral it y op in io n) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ th e Am eri can ex pe rie nc e pr ov i d e s n o

pe rs ua si ve su pp or t” fo r an an ti es ta bl is hm en t co nc ern ev en th ou gh se ve ral st at es ha d

co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io ns on th e to pi c); Bro nx Hou se ho ld of Fai th v. Bd. of Edu c. of

N.Y

. , 75 0 F.3 d 18 4, 19 5 (2 d Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ W e do no t m ean to i mp l y t ha t m erel y by

cl ai m in g th e m ot iv at io n of ob se rv in g in te res ts fav or ed by th e Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se

a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty ge ts a free pa ss , av oi di ng al l sc ru ti ny.”), cer t. de ni ed

, 57 5 U.S. --- , 13 5 S . Ct. 1 73 0 (2 01 5)

.

Perh ap s m or e im

po rta nt ly, th e su bs ta nt ia l an ti es ta bl is hm en t in te res t id en ti fie d

in Lo cke is no t pr es en t he re. Unl ik e a st ud en t pr ep ari ng fo r th e m in is try, whi ch is “ an

es se nt ia ll y rel ig io us en de av or ,” 54 0 U.S. at 72 1, sc h o o l c h i ld ren pl ay in g on a sa fer

ru bb er su rfac e m ad e fro m en vi ro nm en ta ll y -fri en dl y recycled ti res ha s no th in g to do

wit h rel ig io n. If gi vi ng th e Learn in g Cen te r a pl ay gr ou nd -s ur faci ng gr an t rai se s a

su bs ta nt ia l an ti es ta bl is hm en t co nc ern , th e sa m e can be sa id f o r v irt ua ll y al l

go ve rn m en t ai d to th e Learn in g Cen te r, no m at te r ho w far rem ov ed fro m rel ig io n th at

ai d m ay be

. W he n th e Lo cke Co ur t sp ok e of a su bs ta nt ia l an ti es ta bl is hm en t co nc ern , I se rio us ly do ub t it was co nt em pl at in g a st at e’s i n t eres t in no t ru bb eri zi ng a pl ay gr ou nd su rfac e wit h re cy cl ed ti res

. Se e Bro nx Hou se ho ld of Fai th , 75 0 F .3d at

19 4 (“ Und erl y in g th e Bo ard ’s pr oh ib it io n [o f ho st i n g rel ig io us se rv ic es in sc ho ol

faci li ti es ] is a sl ig ht ly di ffer en t m an ife st at io n of th e sa m e hi st or ic al an d co ns ti tu ti on al

av ers io n to th e us e of pu bl ic fu nd s to s u p p o r t t h e pr act ic e of rel ig io n ci te d by th e

Co ur t i n Lo cke .”).

I n li gh t of th e Dep art m en t’s ne gl ig ib le an ti es ta bl is hm en t in te res t, I co nc lu d e

th at th e co ur t ov ers ta te s th e si gn ifi ca n c e o f t he Dep art m en t’s co nc ern ab ou t gi vi ng

a gr an t di rect ly to th e Learn in g Cen te r, rat he r th an ha vi ng th e m on ey fil te red th ro ug h

-2 1-th e in de pe nd en t ch oi ce of pr iv at e in di vi du al s. “ Alt ho ug h pr iv at e ch oi ce is on e way

to br eak th e li nk be twee n go ve rn m en t an d r e l i g i o n , it is no t th e on ly way .” Am.

Ath ei st s, In c. v. Ci ty of Detr oi t Dow nt ow n Dev. Aut h.

, 56 7 F.3 d 27 8, 29 5 (6 th Ci r.

20 09 ). In de ed

, ev en th ou gh t h e p la y gr ou nd -s ur faci ng pr og ram in vo lv es a di rect

tra ns fer of fu nd s to th e Learn in g Cen te r, th e co ur t co nc lu de s th at “ it no w se em s rat he r
cl ear th at Mi ss ou ri co ul d in cl ud e th e Learn in g Cen te r’s pl ay gr ou nd in a no ndis cri m in at or y Scra p Tire pr og ram wit ho ut vi ol at in g th e Est ab li sh m ent Cl au se

. ” A nte

at 7. I ag ree. Se e Am. Ath ei st s , 56 7 F.3 d at 29 5 (co ll ect in g cas es to de m on st rat e th at

th e Su pr em e Co ur t “ ha s su st ai ne d a nu m be r of ne ut ral ai d pr og ram s th at di st rib ut ed

ai d di rect ly t o r e li gi ou s or ga ni zat io ns —wi th ou t fil te rin g th e ai d th ro ug h pr iv at e
ch oi ce— whe re th e ai d it se lf ha d no rel ig io us co nt en t an d an y act ua l di ve rs io n was de

m in im is ”). And I, of co ur se , ag ree wit h th e co ur t th at

, in m an y cas es , a co nc ern ab ou t gi vi ng m on ey di rect ly to a ch ur ch -ru n sc ho ol m ay am ou nt to a hi st or ic an d su bs ta nt ia l

st at e in te res t. In de ed

, were it to be un co ve re d d u r i n g di sc ov ery th at th e Learn in g

Cen te r reg ul arl y us es it s pl ay gr ou nd fo r rel ig io us ac tiv ities, m y Free Exe rci se co nc ern

wou ld be les s ac ut e. Howev er, at th is st ag e o f th e li ti ga ti on , I can no t co nc lu de th at

th e Dep art m en t’s co nc ern ab ou t di rect fu nd in g fo r a ru bb er pl ay gr ou nd su rfac e

tra ns la te s i nt o a hi st or ic an d s ub st an ti al an ti es ta bl is hm en t co nc ern

.

In co nc lu di ng th at Trin it y Lut he ran ha s st at ed a cl ai m un de r th e Free Exe rci se

C la us e, I ack no wled ge th at “ [t]he pr eci se bo un ds of th e Lo cke ho ld in g

. . . are fa r

fro m cl ear.” Co lo

. Ch ri st ia n , 53 4 F.3 d at 12 54

. Howev er, th e be st read in g of Lo cke

, in m y vi ew, is th at in th e ab se nc e of a hi st or ic an d su bs ta nt ia l in te res t, th e Dep art m en t’s “ la ti tu de to di sc rimin a te ag ai ns t rel ig io n

. . . do es no t ex te nd to th e
who le sa le ex cl us io n of re lig iou s ins ti tu ti on s an d th ei r st ud en ts fro m ot he rwis e ne ut ral

an d ge ne ral ly av ai la bl e go ve rn m en t s u p p o r t

. ” Se e id

. at 12 55

. I th eref or e

res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e co ur t’s affi rm an ce of th e di sm is sa l of Trin it y Lut he ran ’s

F r e e Exe rci se cl ai m

. Bec au se th is cl ai m is li nk ed to Trin it y Lut he ran ’s Equ a l

Pro te ct io n cl ai m , I di ss en t fro m th e co ur t’s di sp o s i t i o n of th is cl ai m as well

. Se e

Lo cke

, 54 0 U.S. at 72 0 n.3

. Mo reo ve r, be cau se I wou ld rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s

-2 2-di sm is sa l o f Trin it y Lut he ran ’s co m pl ai nt

, I ne ed no t reach th e se pa rat e q ue st io n o f

whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g Trin it y Lut he ran ’s m ot io n

to am en d th at co m

pl ai nt

. Se e Lo rma nd

v. US Un wi re d, In c. , 56 5 F .3d 22 8, 2 32 n.2
(5 th C i r. 20 09 ); se e al

so Xero x Co rp

. v. Gen moo ra Co rp

. , 88 8 F.2 d 34 5, 35 8 n.7 0
(5 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (“ Fo r pu rp os es of ou r rem an d, we on ly po in t ou t to th e tri al co ur t th at

le av e to am en d sh ou ld be free ly gr an te d an d de ni ed on ly up on a sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e

to th e o th er p art y .”). I ot he rwis e co nc ur in th e co ur t’s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 3-