Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

II 

Properly  understood  then,  this  is  a  case  about  whether 
Missouri can decline to fund improvements to the facilities 
the Church uses to practice and spread its religious views. 
This Court has repeatedly warned that funding of exactly 
this  kind—payments  from  the  government  to  a  house  of
worship—would  cross  the  line  drawn  by  the  Establish-
ment Clause.  See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New 
York, 397 U. S. 664, 675 (1970); Rosenberger v. Rector and 
Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 844 (1995); Mitchell 
v.  Helms,  530  U. S.  793,  843–844  (2000)  (O’Connor,  J., 
concurring in judgment).  So it is surprising that the Court 
mentions  the  Establishment  Clause  only  to  note  the  par-
ties’  agreement  that  it  “does  not  prevent  Missouri  from 
including  Trinity  Lutheran  in  the  Scrap  Tire  Program.” 
Ante,  at  6.  Constitutional  questions  are  decided  by  this
Court,  not  the  parties’  concessions.  The  Establishment 
Clause  does  not  allow  Missouri  to  grant  the  Church’s 
funding  request  because  the  Church  uses  the  Learning 
Center,  including  its  playground,  in  conjunction  with  its 
religious mission.  The Court’s silence on this front signals
either  its  misunderstanding  of  the  facts  of  this  case  or  a 
startling departure from our precedents. 

A 
The  government  may  not  directly  fund  religious  exer-
cise.  See Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 16 
(1947);  Mitchell,  530  U. S.,  at  840  (O’Connor,  J.,  concur-
ring  in  judgment)  (“[O]ur  decisions  provide  no  precedent 
for  the  use  of  public  funds  to  finance  religious  activities” 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted)).    Put  in  doctrinal 
terms,  such  funding  violates  the  Establishment  Clause
because it impermissibly “advanc[es] . . . religion.”1  Agos-

—————— 

1 Government  aid  that  has  the  “purpose”  or  “effect  of  advancing  or 
inhibiting  religion”  violates  the  Establishment  Clause.    Agostini  v.