Hunt v. Nair 8212 1523
| Citation | 37 L.Ed.2d 923,413 U.S. 734,93 S.Ct. 2868 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
| Parties | Richard W. HUNT, Appellant, v. Robert E. McNAIR, Governor of South Carolina, et al. —1523 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
In this action for injunctive and declaratory relief appellant challenges the South Carolina Educational Facilities Authority Act as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment insofar as it authorizes a proposed financing transaction involving the issuance of revenue bonds benefiting a Baptist-controlled college. The Act establishes an Educational Facilities Authority to assist (through the issuance of revenue bonds) higher educational institutions in constructing and financing projects, such as buildings, facilities, and site preparation, but not including any facility for sectarian instruction or religious worship. Neither the State nor the Authority is obligated, directly or indirectly, to pay the principal of or interest on the bonds; nor is the State's taxing power pledged or implicated. All expenses of the Authority also must be paid solely from the revenues of the projects. The Authority gave preliminary approval to an application submitted by the college, only 60% of whose students are Baptists. As subsequently modified, the application requests the issuance of revenue bonds to be used for refinancing capital improvements and completing the dining hall. Under the statutory scheme the project would be conveyed to the Authority, which would lease it back to the college, with reconveyance to the college on full payment of the bonds. The lease agreement would contain a clause obligating the institution to observe the Act's restrictions on sectarian use and enabling the Authority to conduct inspections. The provision for reconveyance would restrict the project to non-sectarian use. The trial court denied appellant relief, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. After this Court had vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745, and other intervening decisions, the State Supreme Court adhered to its earlier decision. Held: The Act as construed by the South Carolina Supreme Court does not, under the guidelines of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 612—613, 91 S.Ct., at 2111, violate the Establishment Clause. Pp. 741—749.
(a) The purpose of the Act is secular, the benefits of the statute being available to all institutions of higher education in the State, whether or not they have a religious affiliation. Pp. 741 742.
(b) The statute does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. The college involved has no significant sectarian orientation and the project must be confined to a secular purpose, with the lease agreement, enforced by inspection provisions, forbidding religious use. Pp. 742—745.
(c) The statute does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. The record here does not show that religion so permeates the college that inspection by the Authority to insure that the project is not used for religious purposes would necessarily lead to such entanglement. The Authority's statutory power to participate in certain management decisions also does not have that effect, in view of the narrow construction by the State Supreme Court, limiting such power to insuring that the college's fees suffice to meet bond payments. Absent default, the lease agreement would leave full responsibility with the college regarding fees and general operations. Pp. 745—749.
258 S.C. 97, 187 S.E.2d 645, affirmed.
Robert McCormick Figg, Jr., Columbia, S.C., for appellant.
Huger Sinkler, Charleston, S.C., for appellees.
Appellant, a South Carolina taxpayer, brought this action to challenge the South Carolina Educational Facilities Authority Act (the Act), S.C.Code Ann. § 22— 41 et seq. (Supp.1971), as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment insofar as it authorizes a proposed financing transaction involving the issuance of revenue bonds for the benefit of the Baptist College at Charleston (the College).1 The trial court's denial of relief was affirmed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. 255 S.C. 71, 177 S.E.2d 362 (1970). This Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the intervening decisions in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, and Robinson v. DiCenso, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); and Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), 403 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 2276, 29 L.Ed.2d 854 (1971). On remand, the Supreme Court of South Carolina adhered to its earlier position. 258 S.C. 97, 187 S.E.2d 645 (1972). We affirm.
We begin by setting out the general structure of the Act. The Act established an Educational Facilities Authority 'the Authority), the purpose of which is 'to assist institutions for higher education in the construction, financing and refinancing of projects . . .,' S.C.Code Ann. § 22—41.4 (Supp.1971), primarily through the issuance of revenue bonds. Under the terms of the Act, a project may encompass buildings, facilities, site preparation, and related items, but may not include
'any facility used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship nor any facility which is used or to be used primarily in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity for any religious denomination.' S.C.Code Ann. § 22—41.2(b) (Supp.1971).
Correspondingly, the Authority is accorded certain powers over the project, including the powers to determine the fees to be charged for the use of the project and to establish regulations for its use. See infra, at 747—749.
While revenue bonds to be used in connection with a project are issued by the Authority, the Act is quite explicit that the bonds shall not be obligations of the State, directly or indirectly:
S.C.Code Ann. § 22—41.10 (Supp.1971).
Moreover, since all of the expenses of the Authority must be paid from the revenues of the various projects in which it participates, S.C.Code Ann. § 22—41.5 (Supp.1971), none of the general revenues of South Carolina is used to support a project.
On January 6, 1970, the College submitted to the Authority for preliminary approval an application for the issuance of revenue bonds. Under the proposal, the Authority would issue the bonds and make the proceeds available to the College for use in connection with a portion of its campus to be designated a project (the Project) within the meaning of the Act. In return, the College would convey the Project, without cost, to the Authority, which would then lease the property so conveyed back to the College. After payment in full of the bonds, the Project would be reconveyed to the College. The Authority granted preliminary approval on January 16, 1970, 255 S.C., at 76, 177 S.E.2d, at 365.
In its present form, the application requests the issuance of revenue bonds totaling $1,250,000, of which $1,050,000 would be applied to refund short-term financing of capital improvements and $200,000 would be applied to the completion of dining hall facilities.2 The advantage of financing educational institutions through a state-created authority derives from relevant provisions of federal and South Carolina state income tax laws which provide in effect that the interest on such bonds is not subject to income taxation.3 The income-tax-exempt status of the interest enables the Authority, as an instrumentality of the State, to market the bonds at a significantly lower rate of interest than the educational institution would be forced to pay if it borrowed the money by conventional private financing.
Because the College's application to the Authority was a preliminary one, the details of the financing arrangement have not yet been fully worked out. But Rules and Regulations adopted by the Authority govern certain of its aspects. See Jurisdictional Statement, Appendix C, pp. 47—51. Every lease agreement between the Authority and an institution must contain a clause
'obligating the Institution that neither the leased land, nor the facility located thereon, shall be used for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship, or in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity of any religious denomination.' 258 S.C., at 101, 187 S.E.2d, at 647.
To insure that this covenant is honored, each lease agreement must allow the Authority to conduct inspections, and any reconveyance to the College must contain a restriction against use for sectarian purposes.4 The Rules further provide that simultaneously with the execution of the lease agreement, the Authority and the trustee bank would enter into a Trust Indenture which would create, for the benefit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev.
...mission or when it funds a specifically religious activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting. Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973):9 The prohibition on government aid to pervasively sectarian institutions underlies the Supreme Court's decisions......
-
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Nelson
...349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975); Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825, 93 S.Ct. 2982, 37 L.Ed.2d 939 (1973); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Committee of Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973); Levitt v. Committe......
-
Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop
...in dealing with Establishment Clause challenges." Mueller, 463 U.S. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 3066 (quoting Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973)). 23 The court is aware that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in dictu......
-
Helms v. Cody
...mission.'" Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 610, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 2574, 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988) (quoting Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2874, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973)). 4. The Court has already determined that the parochial schools operated under the auspices of the Archdioces......
-
ESTABLISHMENT'S POLITICAL PRIORITY TO FREE EXERCISE.
...of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975); Stone v. Graha......
-
Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine.
...may exist between these lines must also take account of the extent to which Lemon has been repeatedly diminished, see Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973), ignored, see, e.g., Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001), and re......
-
Putting faith in prison programs, and its constitutionality under Thomas Jefferson's faith-based initiative.
...510 (indicating that the letter was composed on January 1, 1802, approximately nineteen and a half months earlier). (173.) Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 744 (1973); see also Roemer v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 426 U.S. 736, 762 (174.) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (requiring a sta......
-
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM: ASSESSING NONDISCRIMINATION AFTER TRINITY LUTHERAN AND ESPINOZA.
...of a benevolent neutrality" and held that church property tax exemptions did not violate the Religion Clauses, and Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 736, 741-49 (1973), which applied the Lemon test and upheld a South Carolina Act that authorized the issuance of bonds to assist institutions of h......