Opinion ID: 778880
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Primary Purpose and Effect of the Program

Text: 76 In her concurrence in Zelman, Justice O'Connor reaffirmed that the modified Lemon Test is still a central tool in analysis of Establishment Clause cases noting: 77 As originally formulated, a statute passed this test only if it had a secular legislative purpose, if its principal or primary effect was one that neither advance[d] nor inhibit[ed] religion, and if it did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 218, 232-233, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997), we folded the entanglement inquiry into the primary effect inquiry. This made sense because both inquiries rely on the same evidence, see ibid., and the degree of entanglement has implications for whether a statute advances or inhibits religion, see Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). The test today is basically the same as that set forth in School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) ( citing Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)), over 40 years ago. 78 Zelman, 122 S.Ct. at 2475 (2002) (O'Connor, J. concurring opinion) (parallel citations omitted). 79 As to the primary purpose, industrial revenue bonds advance a clear governmental, secular interest in promoting economic and educational development. Such conduit financing also promotes economic development though the underwriting of job-producing construction projects at colleges and universities. In turn, a more educated populace is better positioned to generate new development and economic opportunity. In a case involving industrial revenue bonds for a private religious high school, this Court held in Johnson v. Economic Development Corp., 241 F.3d at 512: 80 A state's decision to assist businesses in their operation in order to create and maintain jobs — regardless of the type of businesses — `evidences a purpose that is both secular and understandable', Mueller, 463 U.S. at 395, 103 S.Ct. 3062 ... Michigan could conclude that there is a strong public interest in promoting, assisting, and retaining commercial enterprises, both sectarian and non-sectarian. 81 As to the program's primary effect, tax free revenue bonds have neither the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or as Justice O'Connor has put it, of `endors[ing] or disapprov[ing] ... religion.' Zelman, 122 S.Ct. at 2475 (O'Connor, J. concurrence) citing Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 691-92, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (concurring opinion). Metro's program, as in Mueller, `[] is made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefitted.' Zelman, 122 S.Ct. at 2466 citing Mueller, 474 U.S. at 487, 106 S.Ct. 748. 82 The effect of Metro's program is economic and educational development. Many states and local governments have used industrial revenue bonds to entice new, or expanded manufacturing, commercial, and educational projects. These projects, privately owned, are not financed with direct government funding, but are given preferential tax treatment through conduit financing. Lipscomb University seeks the same type of financing for the expansion of its facilities as could be sought by Walmart, Sears, or educational institutions. The Loan Agreement between the Board and Lipscomb University specifically prohibits it from using any bond-financed facilities for religious purposes. The projects Lipscomb University seeks to finance would provide no less economic development than a new store or a new manufacturing facility. 83 Further, as in the school funding program the Supreme Court upheld in Zelman, Metro's industrial revenue bond program does not present the perception of endorsement to the reasonable observer. `[T]he reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware' of the `history and context' underlying a challenged program. Zelman, 122 S.Ct. at 2469 citing Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 119, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001). As the Zelman Court stated: 84 Any objective observer familiar with the full history and context of the Ohio program would reasonably view it as one aspect of a broader undertaking to assist poor children in failed schools, not as an endorsement of religious schooling in general. 85 Zelman, 122 S.Ct. at 2468. 86 Similarly, in the instant case, the objective observer of Metro's industrial revenue bond program, knowing the history and context of this program, would reasonably view it as one aspect of a broader undertaking to finance economic development, not as an endorsement of religious schooling in general. Metro no more endorsed Lipscomb University than it did Wal-Mart in issuing industrial revenue bonds.