Morris County, Churches Ask US Supreme Court to Take Up Preservation Grants Case
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in April that awarding historic preservation grants to the churches violated the state constitution.
September 19, 2018 at 05:19 PM
3 minute read
Morris County is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by New Jersey's high court that said the award of $4.6 million in taxpayer funds for historic preservation of churches violated the Religious Aid Clause of the state constitution.
The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed Tuesday on behalf of the county and a group of churches by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for the rights of religious institutions.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in April that awarding the historic preservation grants to the churches violated the state constitution, holding that the recipients “are not being denied grant funds because they are religious institutions; they are being denied public funds because of what they plan to do—and in many cases have done: use public funds to repair church buildings so that religious worship services can be held there.”
Becket was an amicus before the state Supreme Court.
In the petition, Becket argues that the funds were necessary to preserve the historic nature of the churches, some of which were built during the 1700s and are showing the results of historic decay.
“Time takes its toll on all things—including historic places of worship,” Becket's lead attorney, Eric Baxter, wrote in the petition. “Accounting for this melancholy truth, federal, state, and local governments have long allocated funds for the preservation of historic sites, secular and religious alike.”
He added, “This effort has the noble purpose of maintaining connections to the past, honoring history's most striking achievements, and preserving the character and beauty of our nation's diverse communities.”
Baxter noted that lower courts have split on the issue of whether public funds can be used for historic preservation of religious facilities, and urged the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
The lawsuit challenging the Morris County grants was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Its lead attorney, Andrew Seidel, could not be reached for comment on the petition.
According to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in the case, between 2012 and 2015, about $4.6 million of the Morris County freeholders' $11.1 million in historic preservation grants went to 12 churches. The recipient properties had to be registered on the national and New Jersey registers of historic places, among other qualifications, and several recipients noted on their applications that the funds would be used to renovate houses of worship used for services, according to the court.
In late 2015 the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and David Steketee, a member of the organization and resident of Morris County, sued the freeholder board and other Morris County parties. The organization relied on the New Jersey Constitution's Religious Aide Clause, which provides that citizens can't be required ”to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry[.]”
The freeholders removed the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge John Vazquez in 2016 remanded it. The county's motion for summary judgment was granted by Somerset County Superior Court Judge Margaret Goodzeit, who held that the county was not barred from awarding grants to churches. The Supreme Court took up the case directly from Goodzeit, and reversed her holding.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 2Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 3Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 4Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 5Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250