# Americans United v. Rogers

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 26, 1976 · 538 S.W.2d 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680077

## Case

- **Full name:** AMERICANS UNITED, a Corporation, Et Al., Respondents, v. H. Lang ROGERS Et Al., Appellants, and Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri, Intervenor-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 26, 1976
- **Citations:** 538 S.W.2d 711
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Morgan, Donnelly, Holman, Finch, Bardgett, Seiler, Henley, Don-Nelly
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680077

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Missouri Constitution requires stricter separation of church and State than does Federal Constitution

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of Missouri reads as follows:
“That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.” (Emphasis mine.)
I think it must be conceded that the money paid out under the challenged statutory scheme will result in aid to some denominations of religion. The statutory mode of payment of such money to students, rather than directly to institutions for sectarian purposes, is itself a classic example of indirect aid to denominations of religion.
The principal opinion quotes the provisions of Art. I, § 7, supra. They are not thereafter mentioned. The principal opinion thus ignores the indirect aid proscription in Art. I, § 7, supra, and applies to Missouri the less restrictive federal position on separation of church and state as articulated in Roemer.
In my opinion, the statutory scheme is facially unconstitutional because it authorizes violations of Art. I, § 7, supra.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680077. Public record. Not legal advice.