Eugene Volokh discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Davey v. Locke here. Volokh says that the case “held that states may discriminate against religious programs in distributing generally available benefits.”
In Volokh’s opinion, Justice Scalia’s dissent is more persuasive than the majority opinion. This observation could be applied to many landmark decisions issued by the Court in recent times. I believe that one day, Scalia will take his place next to Oliver Wendell Holmes as one of the great dissenters in Court history.
I haven’t had time to read the decision yet. However, if government has the power to discriminate against religious organizations, I wonder if the “logic” of the decision allows government to discriminate against only certain religious organizations. For example: “Here’s some money for you, and you — but nothing for the Jews.” When I read the decision, I will read it with an eye to answering that question.
Volokh describes the decision as resulting in
a regime where the government may discriminate against private religious institutions and programs, but may not discriminate in their favor. Now this is a wrong that is indeed worth amending the Constitution over.
Amen I certainly agree, brother.