Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a religious use' that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, this Court held that, under the Free Exercise Clause, a church could not be excluded from a state’s playground resurfacing program solely because of its religious character. 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017). The Court suggested, however, that it would reserve for another day how its ruling would apply to other government programs. Id. at 2024 n.3. Since that time, courts have divided on whether houses of worship can be excluded from historic preservation programs consistent with the Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Courts of New Jersey and Massachusetts have upheld exclusions, concluding that using funds to repair or restore the exterior of a house of worship is a “religious use” far removed from the spending for playground safety at issue in Trinity Lutheran. The Supreme Court of Vermont and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in contrast, have held that exclusion would conflict with Trinity Lutheran and violate the Free Exercise Clause by denying a public benefit to an otherwise eligible entity just because it is religious. This petition thus presents the following questions: 1. Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a “religious use” that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran. 2. Whether the categorical exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violates Trinity Lutheran and the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.