Court Opinion

ID: 9658084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:46:20.815828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.380978
License: Public Domain

EICH, C.J.
(dissenting). In this case the trial court undertook a painstaking analysis of the applicable case law and concluded as follows:
The foregoing cases stand for the proposition that [t]he Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld and would uphold specific one-time grants to named church-related institutions of higher education where the public purpose of the grant is manifest, where there are sufficient controls in place to monitor the expenditure of the funds (or where monitoring is unnecessary to insure proper expenditures), and where the grantee is sufficiently insulated from the church-related university to be considered a separate entity ....
An examination of the statute authorizing the grant in question shows that it is unconstitutional on its face, beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the safeguards which have enabled other statutes to withstand . . . challenges to similar grants are present. Each of the . . . cases which upheld such appropriations contained either comprehensive statements of legislative intent and purpose to aid in determining secular purpose or statutory restrictions against religious use . . ..
Not so in the case at bar.
*747The grant to St. Norbert College is not available to any other institution, contains no restrictions on the use of the funds in question, and contains no declaration of public purpose to give guidance in interpreting the rationale behind the statute. The only evidence available is the language of the statute itself and the organization and operation of the college . . ..
Unfortunately [the language of the statute] do[es] not shed any light on what kind of an international center is being planned, what its purpose is, who will benefit from its construction and operation, who will manage and operate it, what is the composition of the Board of Directors, if any, and how they are selected, whether it will be operated under the corporate umbrella of the college, whether the state funds will be commingled with the funds of the college, how the planning money will be spent, whether any excess funds will be returned to the state, who will do the planning and under whose supervision, what benefit will accrue to the state as a whole, and so forth. These are the . . . questions which the courts have had to address in similar cases. Here, however, there is no guidance whatsoever.
Looking to the articles of incorporation of St. Norbert's College, Inc., as quoted in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, they direct that the college is to be operated "within the context of theology, philosophy, other teachings and doctrines of the Roman Catholic church and shall be in compliance with objectives and philosophy of . . . The Order of Canons Regular of Premontre, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church." Under the articles, membership in the college corporation is limited to the members of a nonprofit corporation known as "The Premonstratensian Fathers," a religious order which, like the college corporation itself, is "operated in *748a manner consistent with the theology, philosophy, other teaching and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and with the objectives and the philosophy of the Order of Canons Regular of Premontre, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church."
The college corporation's articles also provide that its board of directors is to be appointed by the Premon-stratensian Fathers, and the corporation's bylaws can only be adopted, amended or repealed by action of the Premonstratensian Fathers.
The state's answer admits all such allegations, noting only that while the members of the college corporation's board of directors were appointed by the Premon-stratensian Fathers, "the day-to-day operations of the college are now conducted by a Board of Trustees . . . and that no more than thirty percent of the Board of Trustees can be Norbertines."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has recognized that "[a]id may normally be thought of as having the primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an institution in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission . . .." State ex rel. Warren v. Nusbaum, 64 Wis. 2d 314, 325, 219 N.W.2d 577, 583 (1974). I believe that is the case here.
The state concedes, as it must: (1) that the college corporation's articles of incorporation commit its overall operation to the "theology, philosophy . . ., teachings . . ., doctrines [and] objectives" of the Roman Catholic Church and the Order of Canons Regular of Premontre; (2) that the college's directors are named by the Premon-stratensian Fathers, who are similarly committed to the philosophy, doctrines and objectives of the Church; and (3) that only the Premonstratensian Fathers can adopt, *749amend or repeal the bylaws under which the college corporation operates.
The only fact offered by the state to ameliorate the sectarian dominance of the college's operations is the allegation in the answer that the institution's "day-today operations" are now conducted by a group of trustees whose membership is only thirty percent sectarian. It remains uncontroverted, however, that no matter who may oversee matters on a day-to-day basis, the college's operations are required to be conducted according to precepts of the Roman Catholic Church and the religious order which comprises the college corporation's entire membership; and that order retains the sole power to adopt, amend or repeal the bylaws under which the college operates.
Those are the pleaded facts that were considered by the trial court, and they lead me to conclude, as Judge Pekowsky did, that the statute cannot stand. To me those facts lead to a single conclusion: that religion is so pervasive a part of the college's makeup that the aid embodied in the appropriation can only have the effect of advancing religion. I would affirm the trial court and hold that the challenged statute is unconstitutional on its face.