However, in Clevealnd, legislators knew that practically all recipients of the governmental largesse would be mainstream religious. That's a serious problem: at some level, known effect of aiding religion needs to be treated as intentionally aiding religion, and in Ohio/Cleveland, that level was exceeded. Cf. Hialeah/Santeria case.

I don't buy an "intent" standard for establishment cases; it is a dangerous game where judges would be trying to read the collective mind of a legislature.

And so what if the practical effect TODAY is to aid Catholic schools; there is nothing in the law that prevents other religions or no-religion schools from taking advantage of the law. That effect is neutral, which is key. Nothing in the law is saying that Catholicism is necessarily better than other religions; at most there is indication that the legislators thought Catholic schools were better than the public schools, but that intent could be (and in many cases is) a purely secular evaluation of te quality of the schools. So if that secular evaluation of the quality of Catholic schools was the "intent", does that mean it therefore passes muster?

Re specific q: the known primary (and as an antitrust atty familiar with "entry barriers," I'd say for the foreseeable next 5 years) beneficiary were schools that teach religion. The legislature, for whatever reasons (neocon thought, theocratic impulse, desire to appear to be doing something, whatever), passed a law that constitutes a massive infusion of fungible resources to religion. That's bad. A tougher case would be an area where there were a significant number of private, secular schools willing to participate, but this case wasn't it.

You oppose Washington v. Davis, right? And ought not the standard to discern intent be LOWER in Establishment Clause cases than Equal Protection, considering that arguably the fear of inequality is more expressly stated in the language of the former than the latter?

What about Blue Laws, another bad SCOTUS decision? There are few pro-religion decisions which cannot be cloaked within neutrality:

1) the Bible *IS* the most important work of Western literature ever, for better or for worse;
2) the 10 Commandmants *DO* express a view of ethics;
3) laws against sodomy *DO* have a historical, non-Christian basis;
4) laws proscribing gay marriage or polygamy. . . .

Etc. . . . There is no political agenda of religion that could not be written to appear facially non-religious.

Here is the story: BlackJack originated in French casinos around 1700 where it was called "vingt-et-un" ("twenty-and-one") and has been played in the U.S. since the 1800's. Online BlackJack is named as such because if a player got a Black Jack of Spades and internet black jack an Ace of Spades as the first two cards (Spade being the color jack black of course), the player was additionally remunerated. http://www.888-blackjack.com