Next Article in Journal
Rethinking the Relationship between Women, Crime and Economic Factors: The Case-Study of Women Sentenced to Death for Drug Trafficking in Malaysia
Next Article in Special Issue
Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom
Previous Article in Journal
Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools
Previous Article in Special Issue
Donald Trump, the Christian Right and COVID-19: The Politics of Religious Freedom
Open AccessArticle

The Constitutionality of Providing Public Funds for U.S. Houses of Worship during the Coronavirus

by 1,2
1
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP, Washington, DC 20006, USA
2
Law Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20001, USA
Received: 13 January 2021 / Revised: 21 January 2021 / Accepted: 28 January 2021 / Published: 30 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Crisis of Religious Freedom in the Age of COVID-19 Pandemic)
U.S. constitutional jurisprudence precludes the direct government funding of religious activity. At the same time, the jurisprudence surrounding the U.S. First Amendment Religion Clauses has evolved to support the general inclusion of religious entities in programs through which a government advances some overarching public interest, such as health care or social services, but does not involve the Government in advancing religion per se. Moreover, the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases hold that it is a violation of the First Amendment to exclude a religious actor, solely because it is religious, from a general public program and funding on equal terms with secular actors. Pandemic relief from the federal government has been made available to houses of worship (churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.) to mitigate the economic impact of government lockdown orders and public health restrictions on assembly, by offsetting loss of revenue and avoiding the suspension or termination of employees. The extension of such relief sits precisely at the crossroads of debated legal questions about whether such assistance is aid to religion—prohibited—or neutral disaster relief on equal terms with other community-serving entities—permitted. This article concludes that the inclusion of houses of worship is constitutional, given the trend and direction of U.S. law, although the matter will continue to be debated as the effects of the pandemic recede. View Full-Text
Keywords: anti-establishment; free exercise; CARES Act; Payroll Protection Program; Religious Freedom Restoration Act; “Houses of Worship” anti-establishment; free exercise; CARES Act; Payroll Protection Program; Religious Freedom Restoration Act; “Houses of Worship”
MDPI and ACS Style

Chopko, M. The Constitutionality of Providing Public Funds for U.S. Houses of Worship during the Coronavirus. Laws 2021, 10, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010008

AMA Style

Chopko M. The Constitutionality of Providing Public Funds for U.S. Houses of Worship during the Coronavirus. Laws. 2021; 10(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chopko, Mark. 2021. "The Constitutionality of Providing Public Funds for U.S. Houses of Worship during the Coronavirus" Laws 10, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010008

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop