Religion Law Quiz ## 82 and 83 are closely related. As you’ll recall, in Religion Law Quiz $82 we learned that the Montana Supreme Court erred in its analysis in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue by applying state law first instead of federal law. Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the Supremacy Clause. In very succinct terms, how does the Supremacy Clause apply to State Court judges?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered th...
Religion Law Quiz ## 82 and 83 are closely related. As you’ll recall, in Religion Law Quiz $82 we learned that the Montana Supreme Court erred in its analysis in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue by applying state law first instead of federal law. Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the Supremacy Clause. In very succinct terms, how does the Supremacy Clause apply to State Court judges?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue.
The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. “[T]his Clause creates a rule of decision” directing state courts that they “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal law[ ].” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 324, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015). Given the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the application of the no-aid provision here, the Montana Supreme Court should have “disregard[ed]” the no-aid provision and decided this case “conformably to the [C]onstitution” of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). That “supreme law of the land” condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. Id., at 180. They are “member[s] of the community too,” and their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odious to our Constitution” and “cannot stand.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2023, 2025.
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262–63 (2020)
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. I'm your host, Michael Fielding, and today, we discuss the significant implications of the Supremacy Clause on state law and state court judges. Following our persistent exploration of the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue decision, we delve into how the Supremacy Clause works in practice.
We dive into a real-life example, with a visit to the Missouri State Capitol, to help illustrate the point, understanding the critical role states play in governance and how significantly state decisions can impact our daily lives. Yet, despite the importance of state laws and jurisdictions, the U.S. Constitution holds the ultimate power, defining the bearings for state court judges on how to approach potentially conflicting state laws.
Quoting the Supreme Court's words, we explain how state court judges must prioritize and adhere to what the U.S. constitution states even if it conflicts with state laws. This principle of a higher ruling over a lower law is fundamental to our understanding of the constitution and governance.
Get ready for a sneak peek into our forthcoming episode, where we're going to delve into Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a landmark Supreme Court decision. Don't forget: our religion law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. Share this episode if you find it useful, and leave a review to let us know how we're doing. Until our next discussion, keep being an influence for good.
