Espinoza wins.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_g314.pdf

Breyer's dissent is fascinating, he is trying to reconcile the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. This goes back to my point that the two should be seen as one united Religion Clause that at its essence says that "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion".

Sotomayor makes a good point that this case should have been dismissed on lack of standing, but if they are going to reach the merits I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

I've been doing more readings on religion cases lately and can't shake the thought that this is a simpler way to read the clause(s).

Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

"LET'S PACK THE COURT ANYWAYS!!!!!!! RBG 4 LYYYYYFFFEEE!!!!!" -progressives

Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

For Thomas this is simply because he believes that the establishment clause should not be incorporated, isn't it?

As I have explained in previous cases, at the founding, the Clause served only to “protec[t] States, and by extension their citizens, from the imposition of an established religion by the Federal Government.”

Yup, and he goes even more radical than that:

Emphasis on "Federal" is his.

Not at all surprised. I have not had a chance to read the opinion yet, But based on the posts above I’m concerned that this will be used to set broader precedent than I had originally thought it would

Looks like I've done my job! What do you think about the outcome of this particular case?

The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.

Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.

I haven't gotten to read anything yet, but just based off what you've posted it seems reasonable. Like Ellis said I'd prefer states not to fund private schools at all, but I think a reasonable argument can be made that allowing state money to go any school as long as it isn't religious could be seen as inhibiting religious groups. It sounds similar to the logic that students can start clubs on campus for just about any hobby or interest they want, so to deny students the right to start a religious club would be infringing on their rights as opposed to the school actively promoting religion by allowing the club.