In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday that the state of Missouri cannot deny public funds to a church simply because it is a religious organization.We applaud the court’s decision as the right call and one grounded in common sense given the narrow facts of the case.Trinity Lutheran Church, Columbia, claimed it was discriminated against when the state’s Department of Natural Resources denied its application to participate in a recycled tire scraps program.The church wanted to use the scrap material to provide a safer playground for children who attended its day care and for neighborhood children who use the playground after hours — a purely secular matter.Trinity’s grant application ranked fifth out of 44 applications in a grant cycle where a total of 14 projects were funded.But the state denied Trinity’s application solely on the grounds it was a religious organization under a strict interpretation of a provision in the state Constitution that specifically provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.”That provision, referred to as a Blaine Amendment, was inserted into the state Constitution in 1875 by voters as part of a nationwide anti-Catholic movement to ensure tax money was not used to fund Catholic schools. Similar laws are in effect in 38 states.The case boiled down to whether the state’s decision violated the First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution and, more specifically, whether Missouri had violated the free-exercise clause by preventing Trinity Lutheran from participating in a secular, neutral aid program.The court found that it did. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not allow the state to deny a generally available benefit solely because of an applicant’s religious identity.As he explained, “The express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the Church — solely because it is a church — to compete with secular organizations for a grant.”He added, “. . . But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”Significantly, Justice Roberts was careful to point out that the case involved only the issue of playground resurfacing, and did not raise the question of government funding for other, more explicitly religious activities. In other words, it was a narrow ruling on a specific fact pattern.That likely won’t assuage the fears of those who believe that the decision represents the first crack in the wall of separation of church and state.Without question, the court’s ruling and reasoning will be used to bring more challenges from religious groups in other areas. Maybe that’s a good thing.The state’s policy toward Trinity Lutheran in this case was clearly discriminatory and, frankly, absurd.The state’s Blaine amendment is outdated, too broad and draconian. The court got it right in calling its application in this case unconstitutional.The fact that the majority opinion was not decided along partisan lines proves this point. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion was joined by fellow conservatives Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Gorsuch, as well as liberal Justices Breyer and Kagan.As scholars have noted, the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment were wisely crafted to ensure maximal religious freedom in the United States of America.Interpretations that functionally infringe upon religious exercise run counter to this foundational principle and should appropriately be rejected.The court’s decision in this case pushes back on the notion that religious individuals and organizations have to leave their religious identity behind when they enter the public square.All the court did in this case is impose common sense into the separation of church and state legal doctrine.