Prologue — American Jewish Congress v. Corporation for National & Community Service

O Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

O5 262 AUG 3 0 2008

— . f° Cc

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS,

Petitioner,

v.

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY

SERVICE, et al.,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MARC D. STERN IRVIN B. NATHAN

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS Counsel of Record

Stephen Wise DANIEL S. PARISER

Congress House DONALD R. GORDON

825 Third Av nue ARNOLD & PORTER LLP

Suite 1800 555 Twelfth Street, N.W.

New York, NY 10022 Washington, DC 20004

(212) 879-4500 (202) 942-5000

Counsel for Petitioner

Dated: August 30, 2005

(1)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether that portion of School District of City of

Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) which precludes

the government from subsidizing sectarian school teachers

who indoctrinate elementary and secondary school students

in religion remains valid law.

2. Whether a program under which the federal

government chooses through discretionary grants to fund and

sponsor religious groups that place federally subsidized

religion teachers in sectarian elementary and secondary

schools can properly be characterized as a program of “true

private choice” under Ze/man v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S.

639 (2002).

3. Whether the established line of this Court’s cases

precluding the federal government from providing direct

cash payments to religious groups without requiring any

accounting or nionitoring of the funds to ensure that they are

used solely for secular purposes remains binding authority.

(it)

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The Petitioner is American Jewish Congress (“AJC”),

a non-profit organization whose goals include protecting

fundamental constitutional freedoms and American

democratic institutions, particularly the civil and religious

rights and liberties of all Americans and the separation of

church and state. Respondents are the Corporation for

National and Community Service (“Corporation”) (the

Defendant) and the University of Notre Dame (“Notre

Dame”) (the Defendant-Intervenor).

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 29.6

American Jewish Congress does not have a parent

company. There are no publicly held companies that have a

10% or greater ownership interest in American Jewish

Congress.

(iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ee FI BD epecscvesenpeesneennrenmnesennnantinan i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING, ...ccsccsccsccscssevseessossvesesseeee ii

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 29.6..........ccccccee: —

Pe GI GE Be ttrinccicntinncnt vescivininnicinininnnipeeioati iti

py Le Ft.) ee vi

rT ITY cenrastinnsintssinehconsmnsternsinennnsmeeaciatinneintens l

ee Rciinnciescineincesinitviniitasnininatinniintiitainddnnnicisiinpnnsionti ]

CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND

REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED............ l

Cae lrtintiictitctrcintsinniincnictnnniinienniinteniiipiinioteen 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE......-cccccccossccscssessccsscrscsonesoranees 3

I. The AmeriCorps Education Awards Program

RA FOGG iiiccinincntrisinstntccttinminmrintinmeniatiin 3

I]. The Religious Groups That The Corporation

BaD COSTE AO GID evnpceccnssecccnseceesnccasctespescscntesants a

A. Notre Dame’s ACE Program ..................000++- 4

B. Catholic Network Of Volunteer

Si cdaccasdebasiideasiebinedsinnabencnliinanineebwentenganiaials 5

III. Religious Instruction By AmeriCorps

Participants In Their Placements ................cc0::ccceseeeeees 6

(iv)

IV. The Corporation’s Direct Funding Of

IIE ccinci seniinnccasentictuncsssbendecitaimmentesneuieselnies 8

Ve - I ee secscsweccsctrentniontccsinintpninsioniann 9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......cccccccceeeeees 12

I. This Court Should Grant The Petition To Make

Clear That Bal/ Precludes The Government

From Funding Sectarian School Teachers Who

Teach Religion In Sectarian Elementary And

ee ee sniseiedcictenicernnnteihtctctnesimtnisicanisienns 13

II]. | The Court Should Grant The Petition To

Clanfy Whether Government Grant Programs

Involving Highly Discretionary Criteria Can

Be Considered Programs Of “Private Choice”.......... 17

A. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Is

Contrary To Authority From Other

PINE GED icinctinigtarssoctlsciiatenioniphitesieiceien 17

B. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision

Conflicts With This Court’s Precedent ........ 18

Ill. The Court Should Grant The Petition To

Ensure That Direct Cash Grants To Religious

Groups Are Restricted For Secular Uses As

Mandated By Established Precedent ..............::.:0000 21

ee I siissetcceiicihcthcinesasnttissbanscciechsinscigabiuidtedusbaiusedaibibiinn 25

See nscsisanansecsanincnccntnavaiaictsahibiinsnaptdielamniicaetadiaeitihel la

OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DATED MARCH 8,

(v)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DATED JULY 2,

EE ae ae see eee ee ee 13a

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA DATED AUGUST 5, 2005................ 56a

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DATED JUNE I,

2005, DENYING AJC’S PETITION FOR

REHEARING EN BANC........coccccccscsessosesessorsesesessere 59a

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS.......61a

(vi)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases:

Agostini v. Felton,

P&C eee 13, 14, 16, 22

Bowen v. Kendrick,

i So) 20, 22, 23, 24

Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Rel. Liberty v. Nyquist,

Lt yf : EER HEE 10, 22, 24

Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Rel. Liberty v. Regan,

oo SEER eae S 11,24

Eulitt v. Maine Dep't of Educ.,

386 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2004) .............ccccecccecesreceenerers 18

Hunt v. McNair,

ge. Ee ae 22, 24

Lemon v. Kurtzman,

ae es eG Oa cicinrrtnitatceneniniincail 2, 16

Locke v. Davey,

- 4 3 eee 18

Mitchell v. Helms,

eis: Bee i caitistedecteinniatiibinintiiiiihinninas 19, 20, 22

Mueller v. Allen,

Rens 18

(vii)

Page(s)

Nat'l Labor Rel. Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

GBG Ci - CEB CIP ae cccccecieninnresinnieniminnstaiincicteniciniiin 20

Roemer v. Bd. wy Pub. Works of Md.,

aS CG Fae Ce Pe cwrcnsctesctecsntctcncivbesmantantaiinaadiin 22

Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe,

tS 0 ee 17,21

Sch. Dist. of City of Grand Rapids v. Ball,

oR TE S| ee 2, 12, 14, 15

Stark v. St. Cloud State University,

802 F.2d 1046 (8th Cir. 1986).............ccceeeeeceeeeeeeees 17

State Oil v. Khan,

Fae a, FCO a ccantiteiticnaconmmmiadactibaidisdiibiamaasteehies 13

Tenet v. Doe,

me) Se le eee 13

Tilton v. Richardson,

GED ULE, Gre GT ecercrnctecscntonncntidutindiatnineds 13

Witters v. Wash. Dep't of Servs. for the Blind,

GIO Ge ae (ore acicsncsnicieteicsimertinindiiaiianinad 18

——

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,

pt . , Seno 2, 12, 16, 18

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist.,

Fe We © Ce cccceticisstadiniiicuiitabimecnliisctiniibindcand 18

(viii)

Page(s)

Statutes and Regulations:

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)......... isctihiadietinciaebinignbianevinilnienntan: |

TT l

EE 1,6

Re an ae GEER? CAIDUIE PracBecceccoccescetevecsosecenesoceveneseeneeeees 2,7

Se ae Cae CANE Doccevevensesepsceveccevbcoctesvecscesvesesoevees 2,7

Miscellaneous:

Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Legal Analysis,

posted on The Roundtable on Religion &

Social Welfare Policy, available at

http://www.Religionandsocialpolicy.org/legal

Negal_update.cfim?id=34 ..........cccccesecceseeeereeseeeeees 23

TTT a cs ccncecinteseneenncinieeneeseueeeentubennineeneienees l

Petitioner AJC respectfully petitions this Court for a

writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this

case.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the District of Columbia Circuit (Pet.

App. A) reversing the District Court is reported at 399 F.3d

351. The District Court’s opinion (Pet. App. B) granting

summary judgment to AJC is reported at 323 F. Supp. 2d 44.

The District Court’s order dated August 5, 2004, enforcing

the rulings set forth in that opinion, is not reported and is

reproduced at Pet. App. C.

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals denied without opinion AJC’s

timely filed petition for rehearing en banc on June 1, 2005.

(Pet. App. D) This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND

REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States is at issue in this case.

That Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion ....”. U.S. Const.

amend. I.

Although AJC’s request for relief is premised solely

on the government’s violation of the Establishment Clause,

statutory and regulatory authority relating to the program at

issue in this case include 42 U.S.C. § 12634, 42 U.S.C.

§ 12635, 45 C.F.R. § 2520.30 (2001), and 45C.F.R.

2

§ 2520.30 (2002). Those authorities are reproduced at Pet.

App. E.

INTRODUCTION

This case involves three constitutional questions,

each of extraordinary significance, arising from the Court of

Appeals’ failure to follow established authority limiting

government funding and sponsorship of religion. In the

challenged program, the federal government is funding and

sponsoring AmeriCorps teachers who engage in religious

indoctrination of elementary and secondary students in

parochial schools. The federal government chooses religious

groups, through a discretionary process, that recruit and train

those teachers in how to inculcate religion in their sectarian

school placements. The government provides direct cash

funding to the religious groups to help them recruit and train

the teachers. It then pays the religion teachers what is

effectively a salary supplement — a practice that has been

barred since this Court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403

U.S. 602, 606, 608 (1971).

Usurping this Court’s prerogative, the Court of

Appeals declined to apply the weil-established precedent

prohibiting such government sponsorship of religious

indoctrination. See School Dist. of City of Grand Rapids v.

Bail, 473 U.S. 373, 397 (1985). Asserting that such

precedent no longer has force, and relying instead on

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the Court

of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment finding

the federal government’s practices unconstitutional. The

Court of Appeals’ decision to overstep the bounds of this

Court’s precedent has potentially broad-ranging implications

concerning the administration of federal programs — and the

broader relationship between church and state in our nation.

Review by this Court is needed to reinforce the crucially

important constitutional limits of government sponsorship

—

3

and funding of religious indoctrination in this program and in

the future. Delineating those limits is especially important

now, in light of the Administration’s “Faith-Based and

Community Initiative.””

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. The AmeriCorps Education Awards Program

And Grant Process

The federally chartered Corporation administers the

AmeriCorps Education Awards Program, a program among

whose purposes is to support the placement of teachers in

public and private schools that have reported teacher

shortages. (Pet. App. 15a, JA0749, JAI191) Qualifying

teachers in the program are entitled to receive a federal

Education Award of $4,725, which can be used for student

loan forgiveness or for other prescribed purposes. (Pet. App.

16a, JA1191) A prerequisite to eligibility for an Education

Award is completion of a minimum of 1700 hours of service.

The Corporation obligates AmeriCorps participants to

document the time counted towards that minimum hours

requirement on timesheets. (Pet. App. 28a, JA1224,

The Education Awards Program is _ largely

administered through grantees chosen by and funded by the

Corporation. (Pet. App. 16a, JA0037) In order to distribute

limited Congressionally authorized funds among applicants,

the Corporation reviews applications and chooses through a

subjective process which groups to fund. (Pet. App. 16a-

18a, JA1194) The selection criteria that the Corporation

uses to make decisions regarding which groups to fund are,

the District Court concluded, “highly discretionary.” (Pet.

App. 43a) These criteria include, for example, whether the

' The White House’s description of its Initiative can be accessed on the

World Wide Web at http://www. whitehouse.gov/governmenv/ fbci/.