New OLC opinion out today on religious restrictions in federal funding. This one is definitely worth reading, and it will likely make it possible for more religious organizations to partner with the government and participate in programs that serve those in need. Consider what current law requires. A secular food bank receiving federal funds can put whatever it likes on its walls and say whatever it likes before a meal. A church running the soup kitchen next door cannot pause to pray with the people it is feeding---not unless it separates that prayer in time or location from the funded service, documents the separation, and allocates the costs accordingly. Same meal, same hungry neighbors, different rules. The opinion traces those use-based restrictions in PRWORA, the PHSA, and the CCDBGA back to their source: they were drafted to satisfy Lemon and its progeny, which supplied the "pervasively sectarian" limitation and the direct/indirect line. Kennedy abandoned Lemon and its endorsement-test offshoot for an inquiry into the historical hallmarks of the religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit. In the section on the Establishment Clause, rather than asking whether funding "advances religion," OLC works through the six historical hallmarks of establishment: coerced religious exercise, control over doctrine and personnel, punishment of dissenters, restricted political participation, compelled and preferential financial support, and monopolistic control over civil functions. It then confirms that none of those hallmarks are present in government partnership with religious organizations. Grateful to see some of my scholarship cited for this analysis. A lot to unpack here, but this is a serious piece of work that deserves engagement on the merits and that will hopefully lead to much more faith-based partnership with the federal government. justice.gov/olc/media/145905…