Opinion ID: 2481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Government Contract

Text: The Supreme Court has never held that religious institutions are disabled by the First Amendment from participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 609, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988). It long has been established ... that the State may send a cleric ... to perform a wholly secular task. Roemer v. Bd. of Pub. Works of Md., 426 U.S. 736, 746, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976). The analysis is governed by the principle of neutrality: the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 875-76, 125 S.Ct. 2722. With respect to the CPU program, the government has espoused a neutral position: it will contract for CPU services with both religious and secular entities; and, as to religious entities, the government makes no distinctions between faiths or sects. The fact that a CPU is located in a religious facility, or sponsored by a religious entity, or that its revenues benefit a particular faith, does not offend the Establishment Clause. Any violation must arise from the specific conditions of SYI's structure and space, and its religious displays.