In the case of Bradfield v. Roberts in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal funding for religious institutions. The Providence Hospital in Washington D.C., run by Catholic nuns, received funds from Congress to expand its facilities due to an increase in demand for medical services. A taxpayer, Thomas J. Bradfield, sued Francis E. Roberts (the hospital's treasurer), arguing that this allocation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits government support of religion. The court unanimously rejected Bradfield's claim and upheld Congress' decision to fund the hospital expansion project because it served a secular public purpose - providing healthcare services regardless of patients' religious affiliations or beliefs - rather than promoting any specific religion or faith-based activities within its premises. This ruling set a precedent allowing governmental financial aid to be given directly or indirectly towards religiously affiliated organizations as long as they are serving general public interests without advancing their own religions.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradfield v. Roberts, Justice Peckham argued that the federal funding given to a religiously affiliated hospital violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He contended that although hospitals serve a public purpose, this particular institution was under control of a religious order and its property held in trust for religious purposes. Therefore, he believed it inappropriate for Congress to appropriate taxpayer money towards such an entity as it could be seen as government support of religion. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential future implications if such appropriations were allowed to continue unchecked; fearing they might lead down a slippery slope where any charitable organization with some form of public benefit could receive governmental aid regardless of their possible sectarian affiliations or intentions.