A question about constitutional law to kick around: May the State include church-owned (and church-operated) playgrounds in a program that offers grants to subsidize the high costs of renovating the playgrounds to improve their safety to the children? KEY FACT: The particular church at issue here has always let the general public use its playground, and the overwhelming majority of families that use it are not affiliated with the church, but are just folks from the surrounding community. The playground is treated by the community as if it were a public park, though it is not. The PRO-CHURCH side says: No problem here. This is not an Establishment of Religion issue. The government would be promoting playground safety with this grant money, not promoting any religion or belief system. Except a belief that kids should have safer places to play, which we can all agree on. Other non-government entities that operate playgrounds can get this funding. Why can't we? The WALL OF SEPARATION side says: Big problem here. The government is going to start funding churches! Taxpayer money going right to a church. Even if the money is earmarked only for the playground, that frees up the church's own money to use to teach and promote religion. We need a strict wall of separation. The church is 100% responsible for its own playground, and if they want the best materials and equipment for it, let them pay for it. Website & article from the legal aid society funding the Church's lawsuit: http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8831 Article from an anti-religion group, advocating that the church should lose: http://religiousliberty.tv/7222.html (Note that the article above was published in January of 2016, probably composed some time before that, and it mentions that Justice Scalia will be be among those on the Supreme Court when this case is argued). Two prior Supreme Court cases indicate that, if Scalia were still on the Court, the church would prevail. The government program in question would still be "neutral" if it were to allow church playgrounds to get such grants, and the primary purpose of the playground is neutral and secular, without unnecessary religious overtones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._Helms Both of the above cases were very close decisions. One was a 5-4 split, and the other case had NO majority opinion, but a plurality of the justices agreed on the final result, if not the reasoning. Without Scalia, these would likely have resulted in a very different outcome.