Blog 3.2
1. What issue is at the center of both the Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza cases?
According to the article, "Both Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza involve state constitutional provisions that prohibited those states from spending money to 'aid' churches and other religious institutions".
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
Justice Kagan gave the example that, "to prohibit the state from providing 'police protection or fire protection' to churches. That is, if a church caught ablaze, the fire department would be required to let it burn".
3. What choice do the plaintiffs argue that these bans force on students?
The plaintiffs argue these bans force students to choose between "attending a school that accords with her beliefs or receiving thousands of dollars in government benefits".
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
The average amount is $11,392 per public school student.
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "Denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order".
6. Because of the current makeup of the court, how do the authors predict that the Court will settle the Espinoza case?
They predict that the Court could solve this in two ways. They could either declare the case moot or follow Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
Both of these cases "[examine] the Trump administration’s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees".
8. What court precedent was established in the 1982 case US v Lee?
The court established that, " when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
9. How did the Trump Administration expand the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
The Trump Administration expanded the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case by "[pushing] out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control".
10. How do Trump's additions to the Court help predict the outcome of these cases?
By appointing Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court’s vacant seat, it "seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again".
According to the article, "Both Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza involve state constitutional provisions that prohibited those states from spending money to 'aid' churches and other religious institutions".
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
Justice Kagan gave the example that, "to prohibit the state from providing 'police protection or fire protection' to churches. That is, if a church caught ablaze, the fire department would be required to let it burn".
3. What choice do the plaintiffs argue that these bans force on students?
The plaintiffs argue these bans force students to choose between "attending a school that accords with her beliefs or receiving thousands of dollars in government benefits".
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
The average amount is $11,392 per public school student.
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "Denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order".
They predict that the Court could solve this in two ways. They could either declare the case moot or follow Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
Both of these cases "[examine] the Trump administration’s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees".
8. What court precedent was established in the 1982 case US v Lee?
The court established that, " when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
The Trump Administration expanded the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case by "[pushing] out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control".
10. How do Trump's additions to the Court help predict the outcome of these cases?
By appointing Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court’s vacant seat, it "seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again".
Comments
Post a Comment