Court won't Decide on Grants, case continues

The NJ Supreme court could not decide on the case but overruled the appellate court decision that denied the grant, it sent the case back to the secretary of higher education to clarify uncertainties in the factual record.  It upheld the consent from the lower courts to withold the tax money from being given to the yeshiva and other institutions.

we see only one appropriate course of action. Rather than address a matter of constitutional importance on an insufficiently developed record, the better course is to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to bring the relevant factual material into better focus.

  Read the court opinion HERE  see excerpts below.
At present, we are ill-equipped to answer those questions based on the uncertainties in the factual record. Because resolution of those factual matters is a necessary basis for the additional claims, this matter similarly requires factual development prior to undertaking any analysis of the state

Establishment Clause, Donation Clause, and LAD claims raised in the complaint and which are, as yet, undecided.With respect to the Religious Aid Clause issue -- the only claim of plaintiffs’ to be decided by the Appellate Division, whose judgment is under review -- we see only one appropriate
course of action. Rather than address a matter of constitutional importance on an insufficiently developed record, the better course is to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to bring the relevant factual material into better focus. Among the questions to be explored are those previously
identified based on the contrary views of the parties concerning (1) the sectarian nature of these institutions of higher education; (2) whether, in the setting of the curriculum and training programs of these particular institutions, the grant funds will necessarily be used in the “maintenance of any
minister or ministry”; and (3) the adequacy of promised  28 restrictions, or other curbs, against sectarian use of the grant proceeds at present and into the future.  The record does not reveal enough about the nature of the educational training and curriculum offered by the Yeshiva and
Seminary and how it is delivered, nor does the record present sufficient detail about how the grant fund projects will be put to use in the institutions’ respective settings. It is imperative that those issues be more fully developed below, through the crucible of an adversarial process, before the
constitutional questions raised in this matter are addressed. Accordingly, we will remand to the Secretary for the development of a record in accordance with this opinion. V. The judgment of the Appellate Division is necessarily vacated, and the matter is remanded to the Secretary for
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We leave in place the Consent Order entered by the trial court.
JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON and TIMPONE join in this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER did not participate.