What does a children’s playground have to do with the Supreme Court? A lot, starting yesterday. That’s when the justices — including the bench’s newest member, Neil Gorsuch — heard oral arguments in a case of religious discrimination against Missouri’s Trinity Lutheran Church. Like a lot of churches in the area, Trinity has an adjacent playground that needed refurbishing. So, the staff applied for a state grant through Missouri’s Scrap Tire Grant Program that helps reimburse groups for installing rubber safety flooring from recycled tires. In an odd twist, state officials denied Trinity’s request “even though the Missouri Department of Natural Resources ranked its application fifth out of the 44 submitted.”

When the church inquired as to why it was turned down, it was told the state constitution barred the “public treasury” from aiding “any church, section, or denomination of religion.” That hardly seemed fair to the congregation, whose children at the daycare and preschool need just as much outdoor padding as others. “A rubber playground surfaces accomplishes the state’s purposes whether it cushions the fall of the pious or the profane,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) argued in its opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The state’s categorical exclusion of religious daycare centers and preschools from the [program] is discrimination based on religious status, and that violates the First Amendment,” ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman told reporters. Being neutral, he went on, “doesn’t mean treating religious organizations worse than everyone else.” And if the government can block this benefit, what’s next? “[I]f a little girl is hurt on Trinity’s playground, can the county hospital send an ambulance? Or if the city provides fire extinguishers to all preschools, can it give some to Trinity?”

Alan Sears echoed that sentiment. “The obvious solution to this … is neutrality,” he writes. “Real neutrality. The government shouldn’t give a school a grant it hasn’t earned simply because it’s church-owned — but neither should it withhold that same grant when the school has earned it, simply because the school is owned by the church.”

We agree, which is why FRC filed a brief with our friends at the Christian Legal Society, the Anglican Church of North America, the Christian Medical Association, National Religious Broadcasters, and the Queens Federation of Churches asking the Court to stop the government’s punishment of faith-based groups. Our own Travis Weber, who spoke at a press conference after attending the oral arguments, was upbeat. “After listening to today’s proceedings, I am hopeful, with the recent addition of Justice Gorsuch, that the Court will rule on the side of religious liberty, as clearly protected by the Constitution. Justice Gorsuch’s presence will provide a welcome originalist voice in not just the Trinity Lutheran case but plenty of pivotal cases in the decades to come.” Our own Travis Weber was inside the Court for oral arguments and was encouraged by what he heard:

The majority of the justices clearly weren’t buying the state’s arguments. A full seven of them appeared skeptical of arguments trying to defend the discrimination against the church. Only Justice Ginsburg was silent when the state’s attorney argued, and it was tougher to tell how Justice Sotomayor will view this case, but all the others appear as though they will side with the church. Even Justice Breyer asked whether we should just ‘let the church burn down’ if states can deny public safety benefits to churches, and whether we should just let children ‘get tetanus’ or ‘break a leg’ on unsafe facilities.

When Missouri’s counsel tried to argue that giving the church money was constitutionally problematic because the grants rewarded the recipients to publicly proclaim they received them (and this entangled the government with religion), Justice Kennedy asked whether a church would be free to say it was ‘delighted that it has fire protection.’ Everyone got the point. Justice Alito pointed out that certain facilities may receive government money to fortify themselves against terrorist attacks and asked whether the government should tell religiously affiliated facilities to fend for themselves. By the end of the argument, I think everyone saw the silliness of treating religious organizations differently in the public square just because they are religious.

It’s time to level the playing field — and the playground — for every group.

Originally published here.

NCAA’s Return May Net Win for Texas

Now that the NCAA is bouncing back to North Carolina, Texas leaders are ready to get the ball rolling on their own privacy act. After weeks of being cooped up in the state house, one legislator thinks his new bill can break the logjam. Rep. Ron Simmons (R) is offering a slightly different version of the SB6 plan Speaker Joe Straus has kept bottled up. And it already has one fan: Gov. Greg Abbott (R). After hinting at his support for laws like North Carolina’s, Texas’s top executive spoke openly about his desire to deal with the dangerous agenda of the Left. “I applaud the House and Senate for tackling an issue that is of growing concern to parents and communities across Texas who are now looking to the legislature for solutions,” he told reporters. “Rep. Simmons is offering a thoughtful proposal to make sure our children maintain privacy in our school bathrooms and locker rooms. As the debate on this issue continues, I will work with the House and Senate to ensure we find a solution and ultimately get a bill to my desk that I will sign into law.”

While we comb through the language, we’re pleased to see that HB2899 continues to bring this threat to the well-being of children to the forefront of public debate. In brief, the bill would put the brakes on local ordinances that throw open the locker room, shower, or bathroom doors to anyone. A city council, school district, or other government body would have to approach the legislature for permission to change their policy. And that’s no easy process. It’s also a positive sign that Speaker Straus, who was blunt that Texas safety was not “the most urgent concern of mine,” seems more inclined to move this measure forward. Even the business community, which had mixed reviews for SB6, is taking its time to read through this latest idea.

That doesn’t faze Simmons, who knows that companies are the least affected of anyone. “We’re open for business in Texas,” he said. “This doesn’t affect private businesses; they can do what they want to. If somebody controls the stadium lease they can do what they want to there. So we’re not controlling what they do from a private business standpoint.” Meanwhile, in North Carolina, the NCAA is helping to boost Texas’s cause (whether it wants to or not!). This week, the college sports association announced that it was returning championship events to the Tar Heel State after the legislature agreed to tweak HB2.

Of course, that’s incensed groups on the Left like HRC which know, as we do, that HB2.0 (as they’re calling it) does not allow them to force their damaging agenda on children across the state. North Carolina’s state leaders still control who goes in and out of the bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. “The NCAA has fallen ‘hook, line, and sinker’ for this ‘bait and switch’ sham ‘deal’ doubling down on discrimination,” HRC complained. “Even worse, the NCAA has inexcusably gone back on its promise to ensure all championship games are held in locations that are safe, respectful, and free of discrimination. By rewarding North Carolina with championship games, the NCAA has undermined its credibility and is sending a dangerous message to lawmakers across the country who are targeting LGBTQ people with discriminatory state legislation.” In the end, though, even the hype of HRC couldn’t stand up against the public pressure for common sense privacy protections. And the companies threatening to pull the same stunts would be wise to remember that.

Originally published here.

You Can Take Trump’s Picks to the Bank

There are plenty of government agencies conservatives would love to abolish. But instead of getting rid of them, which would take a herculean effort, President Trump has another solution: putting solid conservatives in charge of them. From the EPA to the IRS, the new administration is entrusting some of the most abusive, wasteful, and corrupt offices to new management. And the Export-Import Bank is no different. A longtime target of fiscal conservatives, the Ex-Im, as it’s called, was so despised by Trump that he campaigned on eliminating it.

Now, after meeting with several businessmen, the White House has changed its tune — deciding to put the Bank under more principled leadership, like former Congressman Scott Garrett’s. As a member from New Jersey, Garrett was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus. He lost a tight race in 2016, despite doing a world of good for values voters. During his time in Congress, he had a reputation as a truly honorable leader on fiscal and social issues. He took a strong stance on life and religious liberty and was a major advocate of respecting the Constitution — so much so that he also helped found the Congressional Constitution Caucus.

If he’s confirmed to this new role — joining a five-member board that helps finance exporters — he’ll have his work cut out for him. But like us, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) thinks Scott is up to the task, saying America needs people like Rep. Garrett to “safeguard the agency against further mission creep, fraud, waste, and abuse.” The biggest complaint about the Ex-Im Bank is that it uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize big companies. That will be much more difficult under the control of men like Rep. Garrett, who’ve spent most of their careers demanding more accountability with our tax dollars. We urge the Senate to ignore the big corporate donors and confirm him so that he can continue that good fight at the Ex-Im Bank!

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.