Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 36

10 

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v.
COMER 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

Amos,  483  U. S.  327,  336  (1987);  see  also  id.,  at  343 
(Brennan,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).  But  the  govern-
ment  may  not  invoke  the  space  between  the  Religion
Clauses  in  a  manner  that  “devolve[s]  into  an  unlawful 
fostering  of  religion.”  Cutter  v.  Wilkinson,  544  U. S.  709, 
714 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Invoking  this  same  principle,  this  Court  has  held  that 
the  government  may  sometimes  close  off  certain  govern-
ment  aid  programs  to  religious  entities.    The  State  need 
not,  for  example,  fund  the  training  of  a  religious  group’s 
leaders,  those  “who  will  preach  their  beliefs,  teach  their 
faith,  and  carry  out  their  mission,”  Hosanna-Tabor,  565 
U. S., at 196.  It may instead avoid the historic “antiestab-
lishment interests” raised by the use of “taxpayer funds to 
support  church  leaders.”    Locke  v.  Davey,  540  U. S.  712, 
722 (2004).

When  reviewing  a  law  that,  like  this  one,  singles  out 
religious  entities  for  exclusion  from  its  reach,  we  thus
have not myopically focused on the fact that a law singles
out religious entities, but on the reasons that it does so. 

B 
Missouri has decided that the unique status of houses of
worship  requires  a  special  rule  when  it  comes  to  public
funds.  Its Constitution reflects that choice and provides: 

“That  no  money  shall  ever  be  taken  from  the  public 
treasury,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  aid  of  any  church, 
sect,  or  denomination  of  religion,  or  in  aid  of  any
priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; 
and  that  no  preference  shall  be  given  to  nor  any  dis-
crimination made against any church, sect or creed of
religion,  or  any  form  of  religious  faith  or  worship.” 
Art. I, §7. 

Missouri’s  decision,  which  has  deep  roots  in  our  Nation’s 
history, reflects a reasonable and constitutional judgment.