2002_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The conduit financing advances a clear governmental, secular interest in promoting economic opportunity. Finally, the revenue bond program does not present the perception of governmental endorsement of religion. Overview Where, then, do the courts stand with respect to the constitutionality of tax-exempt bonds for faith-based schools? The Supreme Court's only direct holding in this matter dates back to 1973. In the Hunt v. McNair case, the Court simply followed its reasoning and the holdings in the predecessor Tilton v. Richardson case and concluded that tax-exempt bonds for a religiously affiliated college did not violate the Constitution. (Tilton involved direct cash grants for building projects.) Because Baptist College was merely religiously affiliated, the Hunt court did not need to consider further Tilton distinction between assistance to religious and pervasively sectarian colleges. The Court specifically noted further that the nature of the aid in question was a very special sort of indirect aid which was akin to a governmental service. Hunt, must be viewed in its context. It simply applies the law as it e�sted at that time to the facts in front of it, and its actual holdings are limited. In the Johnson v. Economic Development Corp. of Oakland County case, the Sixth Circuit applied Hunt to a lower education scenario and held that tax-exempt bonds for a religiously affiliated Catholic school which was not pervasively sectarian did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Virginia College Building Authority v. Lynn case involved tax- exempt bond financing for Regent University, which the Virginia Supreme Court concluded was pervasively sectarian. However, like the Si�th Circuit, the Virginia court concluded that, except for a portion of the bonds to be allocated toward the divinity school (which was specifically outside the boundaries of the authorizing Virginia statute and the Virginia Constitution), tax- exempt financing was not unconstitutional. When these decisions are placed within the context of the many other United States Supreme Court decisions on the religion clauses, the validity of tax-exempt financing is beyond doubt for facilities whose primary usage is not specifically religious, even if the borrowing institution is "pervasively sectarian". Indeed, the June 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case quite clearly demonstrates the absolute irrelevance of the doctrine in the context of indirect aid. See www.icemiller.com/resourcecenter for various articles discussing prior cases in detail. MDY 1036531 v I