Americans United v. Rogers
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MORGAN; BARDGETT; SEILER; BARDGETT; The foregoing is set forth because of the dissenting opinion of SEILER, C.J., although it is quite clear under the majority opinion of MORGAN; SEILER; HENLEY; DONNELLY |
| Citation | Americans United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. 1976) |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 59410,59410 |
| Parties | AMERICANS UNITED, a corporation, et al., Respondents, v. H. Lang ROGERS et al., Appellants, and Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri, Intervenor-Appellant. |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., by Daniel P. Card, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, R. H. McRoberts, Sr. and Thomas C. Walsh, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, for appellants.
Frank Susman, Susman, Schermer, Willer & Rimmel, St. Louis, for respondents.
Flavius B. Freeman, Neale, Newman, Bradshaw & Freeman, Springfield, Wayne L. Millsap, Millsap, Weil, Eyerman & Schenberg, Clayton, for amici curiae.
On January 26, 1976, the trial court entered a judgment declaring that: 'The statutory scheme contained in Missouri Revised Statutes, Sections 173.200 to 173.235, popularly known as 'The Financial Assistance Program' and providing for tuition grants to college students at certain approved public and private colleges, is hereby declared to be unconstitutional and void under the guarantees and rights provided within the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and provided within Article I, Sections 6 and 7, Article III, Section 38(a), Article IX, Section 8, and Article X, Section 3, all of the Missouri Constitution (1945).' The state Coordinating Board for Higher Education and certain Independent Colleges and Universities, defendants, have appealed. Jurisdiction of the cause is vested in this court by virtue of Article V, § 3, of the constitution of this state. We reverse.
The challenged statutory scheme was enacted by the General Assembly in 1972. During the 1975--76 school year, approximately 10,000 college students received financial assistance while enrolled in 57 different institutions in Missouri--26 public and 31 private--approved by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. The latter in § 173.210 is designated as the administrative agency for implementation of the program and is empowered to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations to effectuate the same. The Board has the sole authority to '. . . select qualified recipients to receive financial assistance, make such awards of financial assistance to qualified recipients and determine the manner and method of payment to the recipient.'
§ 173.200 is entitled 'Purpose of sections 173.200 to 173.235' and reads:
§ 173.205 contains definitions of academic year, approved private institution, approved public institution, coordinating board, financial assistance, financial need and fulltime student. Two, therein, are of immediate and special interest:
§ 173.215 lists the basic qualifications of an applicant and, in part, provides:
§ 173.220 limits the amount of any grant or award to the least of (1) applicant's financial need, (2) one-half the tuition and mandatory fee charged at the institution attended or (3) the sum of Nine Hundred Dollars.
§ 173.230, in part, provides that 'A recipient of financial assistance may transfer from one approved public or private institution to another without losing his eligibility for assistance . . .'
By stipulation, the parties have agreed as to the manner in which awards are distributed, to-wit:
It seems agreed that forty of the fifty-seven institutions recipients now attend have no church affiliation whatever.
The judgment entered by the trial court reflects that it was predicated upon the following constitutional provisions.
United States Constitution, First Amendment (in part): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .
Article I, § 6--That no person can be compelled to erect, support or attend any place or system of worship, or to maintain or support any priest, minister, preacher or teacher of any sect, church, creed or denomination of religion; but if any person shall voluntarily make a contract for any such object, he shall be held to the performance of the same.
Article I, § 7--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.
Article III, § 38(a)--The general assembly shall have no power to grant public money or property, or lend or authorize the lending of public credit, to any private person, association or corporation, excepting aid in public calamity, and general laws providing for pensions for the blind, for old age assistance, for aid to dependent or crippled children or the blind, for direct...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Condemarin v. University Hosp.
...Dep't, 569 P.2d 95, 97 (Wyo.1977).4 Dague, 275 Ind. at 530, 418 N.E.2d at 213; Winston, 636 S.W.2d at 327; Americans United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711, 716, 721 (Mo.) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1029, 97 S.Ct. 653, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976); Sambs, 97 Wis.2d at 370, 293 N.W.2d at 511; Stan......
-
Widmar v. Vincent
...religious ends." Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2874, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973). 16 See, e. g., Americans United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711, 720 (Mo.) (en banc) (holding Missouri Constitution requires stricter separation of church and State than does Federal Constitution), cer......
-
State ex rel. Gallwey v. Grimm
...of the people unless they are plainly and palpably a violation of the fundamental law of the [state] constitution." Ams. United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711, 716 (Mo.1976). However, this difference does not mean the First Amendment principles recognized by the United States Supreme Court canno......
-
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley
...Section 7. In developing this quid pro quo theory Trinity relies upon its reading of the Missouri Supreme Court case Americans United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711 (Mo.1976). In that case, the Court upheld a state statute directing tuition grants to college students attending approved public or......
-
ADMINISTRATIVE POWER AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AT THE SUPREME COURT.
...48 P.3d 274, 288 (Wash. 2002) (holding that public funding could be used for any institution of higher learning); Ams. United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Mo. 1976) (holding that public funds used for private education did not violate state constitution); Advisory Opinion re Constitution......
-
Section 5.51 Public Purpose
...v. Bohr Farms, LLC, 458 S.W.3d 319 (Mo. banc 2015) State tuition grants at certain public and private colleges— Ams. United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. banc 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1029 (1976) Industrial development by industrial development authorities—Chapter 349, RSMo; State ex ......
-
Section 4 Limitations on the Municipal Taxing Authority
...and predominantly in favor of the taxing authority. See Bowman v. Kansas City, 233 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. banc 1950); Ams. United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. banc 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1029 (1976). See also State ex rel. Crutcher v. Koeln, 61 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. banc 1933), for a discussion ......