1. What issue is at the center of both the Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza cases?
The majority opinion must be crafted carefully, as to not give any side of the case too much power, such as the state being able to ban funding to religious schools or religious schools requiring funding from the state.
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
Without funding for religious institutions, they would also not have access to common public resources, such as the fire department and police, which is absurd. Therefore, a complete cutoff of access is not reasonable or safe for the public.
3. What choice do the plaintiffs argue that these bans force on students?
The students must choose between going to school that reflects their religious beliefs or going to school with access to resources from thousands of dollars of federal funding.
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
$11,392
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
Without a very strong interest, states could not discriminate against religious educational institutions, infringing upon the free exercise of religion. In the Trinity Lutheran case, the schools were participating in a harmless playground resurfacing project which did not warrant discrimination.
6. Because of the current makeup of the court, how do the authors predict that the Court will settle the Espinoza case?
Since the court is mostly conservative, they will likely allow the religious schools to continue to receive funding, and seek to expand the rights of the religious.
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
Both cases surround policies enacted by the Trump administration. However, instead of the SC dealing with the actual issue of contraception, it will address whether the establishment of these rules was constitutional.
8. What court precedent was established in the 1982 case US v Lee?
In the court case, it was ruled that religious people can claim exemptions only when it does not impact other people in a commercial activity.
9. How did the Trump Administration expand the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
Employers could refuse to offer contraceptive coverage on religious grounds.
10. How do Trump's additions to the Court help predict the outcome of these cases?
Trump's addition, Neil Gorsuch, seems to guarantee the conservative majority so that they can grant the religious exemption of contraceptive coverage to employers.
The majority opinion must be crafted carefully, as to not give any side of the case too much power, such as the state being able to ban funding to religious schools or religious schools requiring funding from the state.
2. How does Justice Kagan argue that banning ALL funding to religious institutions would be ridiculous?
Without funding for religious institutions, they would also not have access to common public resources, such as the fire department and police, which is absurd. Therefore, a complete cutoff of access is not reasonable or safe for the public.
3. What choice do the plaintiffs argue that these bans force on students?
The students must choose between going to school that reflects their religious beliefs or going to school with access to resources from thousands of dollars of federal funding.
4. According to the Census, what's the average amount that states spend on each public school student?
$11,392
5. How did Chief Justice John Roberts explain the Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran?
Without a very strong interest, states could not discriminate against religious educational institutions, infringing upon the free exercise of religion. In the Trinity Lutheran case, the schools were participating in a harmless playground resurfacing project which did not warrant discrimination.
6. Because of the current makeup of the court, how do the authors predict that the Court will settle the Espinoza case?
Since the court is mostly conservative, they will likely allow the religious schools to continue to receive funding, and seek to expand the rights of the religious.
7. What issue is at the heart of both of these Pennsylvania cases?
Both cases surround policies enacted by the Trump administration. However, instead of the SC dealing with the actual issue of contraception, it will address whether the establishment of these rules was constitutional.
8. What court precedent was established in the 1982 case US v Lee?
In the court case, it was ruled that religious people can claim exemptions only when it does not impact other people in a commercial activity.
9. How did the Trump Administration expand the effects of the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
Employers could refuse to offer contraceptive coverage on religious grounds.
10. How do Trump's additions to the Court help predict the outcome of these cases?
Trump's addition, Neil Gorsuch, seems to guarantee the conservative majority so that they can grant the religious exemption of contraceptive coverage to employers.
Comments
Post a Comment