Quiz

Establishment Clause

"congress shall make no law establishing religion" Limits government power in an attempt to increase religious freedom

Thornton vs Caldor

- Law said no person who states a particular day of the week is his sabbath shall be required to work on that day i.e. Employee's refusal to work on his sabbath shall not be grounds for dismissal - court struck down for Establishment law was not preferential on it's face to any one religion ("face neutrality") and thus passed Free Exercise but is preferential to religion in general > "establishes" religious test for the benefit on the basis of being religious- separation of church and state

Zorach v Clauson

- similar issue as McCollum but instead had satellite school where students are released to instead of instruction being inside school -Justice DOUGLASS- some forms of accommodations in traditions are accepted without endorsing religion ex: "in god we trust" on money, prayers before congress, etc > establishes "accommodation principle"

McCollum v Board of Edu

-Community establishes "interfaith council" for participation in a "released time program" in which separate instructors would go into public schools, students would receive religious instruction and those w/o permission would go to study hall -Justice BLACK- Everson precedent holds: wall has to be impregnable and now the aid goes past the schoolhouse door and is directly involved with delivering religious instruction on public time and is thus unconstitutional; also argued that it supports religious instruction in particular and the child embargoed in study hall was under duress to go along with majority

Everson v Board of Edu (1947)

-New jersey legis authorizes local school boards to arrange for and pay for the cost of transporting students of secondary/elementary school age of all "non-profit" schools in the district and Everson challenged use of his tax money in parochial schools law was neutral ("Neutrality principle"- even handed with all non-profit schools ) -Justice BLACK: "aid stops at the door"- firefighting (or any secular aid) doesn't aid in the teaching of religion anymore than transporting the students to the school will

City of Boerne v Flores

Background: The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities for violating his rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas. Boerne's zoning authorities argued that the Archbishop's church was located in a historic preservation district governed by an ordinance forbidding new construction Decision: The Church loses, and most of RFRA is considered unconstitutional. The court says congress is overreaching its bounds in interpreting the constitution as its own separate entity from the supreme court. -When dealing with federal level cases, the court has to apply Sherbert and the RFRA (Compelling state interest test/least restrictive alternative test). -When dealing with state level cases, the court cannot apply RFRA and will use the ruling in Employment Division v Smith (generally neutral applicable test).

Lamb's Chapel v CMUF school district Good News Club V Milford Central School

Both cases of prevention of religious group using public facility (Available to all others). Both deemed unconstitutional as it is "viewpoint discrimination".

Board of Education v Allen

Can you loan the same books approved as secular to religious school? I.e. can you give english textbooks or some other non-religious subject Under the Everson precedent- aid went past the school door so unconst But Money not going to school-it's going to parents/students Books supporting the secular requirements No good way to ensure it's not religion passing through the door Books don't teach themselves- interpretation/teaching depends on the teacher Court approves it bc it is "simply secular"

Goldman v Weinberger

Case Description - Goldman, a clinical psychologist in the Air force, was disciplined for wearing his yarmulke. Argues his right to wear it under free exercise claim. Decision - Constitutional review is different in the military than in civilian society. In the military he is EVERYONE's captain. Sameness is important in the military because uniqueness divides. He loses the case as the supreme court doesn't apply Sherbert. Denied exemption. - court defers to military in making the decision since they would know more about what is needed (Ronald Reagan and many others considered this a bad decision and an executive order allowing non obtrusive headgear is imposed)

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao de Vegetal

Case Description - A New Mexican branch of O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal's church gets its shipment of a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I drug seized. Decision - The Supreme Court rules in favor of the church, using RFRA to state that barring the use of the tea containing ayahuasca did not serve a compelling government interest. The second part of the decision lay in the need to uniformly apply the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that since Native Americans are allowed to use peyote, another Schedule I drug, the ruling on the use of ayahuasca must be the same, resulting in its allowance.

Wallace v. Jaffree

Case Description - Alabama amended law authorized school to set aside one minute at the start of each day for mediation or voluntary prayer. Jaffree sued various school officials. Decision - The law was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose due to the fact that the earlier law already protected the right to prayer. Thus, the amendment to that law must have been enacted to convey a message of state endorsement and promotion of prayer. Rejected prayer in school.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc

Case Description - Hobby Lobby, a religious for-profit corporation, sued to stop being required to provide contraceptives to its employees. Decision - Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, deciding that closely held for-profit corporations were to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. Hobby Lobby is on federal grounds (Affordable Care Act) thus we look at it through RFRA (Sherbert scope).

Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis

Case Description - Jehovah's witnesses wanted their child to be exempt from reciting the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag (they were expelled for not doing so) Decision - Refused to grant free exercise exemption because "we live by symbols" that bind us as a cohesive society. Denies exemption.

United States v Lee

Case Description - Lee objected to paying social security tax for his employees arguing the Amish believe it sinful not to provide for their own elderly. Decision - State has compelling interest in taxes (Can't see burden on religion). There is clear distinction between this and Yoder. Denied exemption.

Employment Division v Smith

Case Description - Native American veteran becomes an alcoholic and subsequently recovers. He then becomes a drug counselor. However, as a counselor he does peyote in a religious ceremony so they fire him. He files for unemployment compensation and is denied. Decision: An individual's religious beliefs does not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws. Denied Exemption. Test: generally neutral applicable test (Set forth in Reynolds).

Bob Jones University v United States

Case Description - Non profit institution had student handbook claiming interracial dating was forbidden. Denied tax exemption by IRS because they're racist. Decision - Court upholds IRS. Their racial discrimination is contrary to public policy. "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." Denied exemption.

Abington School District v Schempp (1963)

Case Description - Rule required the selection and reading at the opening of the school day of verses from the bible and the recitation of the lord's prayer by the students (at least 10 verses of the Holy Bible without comment). Children can be excused by written request of parent. "Schempp family, members of the Unitarian Church, successfully challenged high school opening exercises." Decision - The establishment clause prohibits this. These were religious exercises mandated by the state in violation of the command of the first amendment that the government maintain neutrality. Rejected prayer/bible readings in school.

Sherbert v Verner

Case Description - Sherbert works at a textile mill and being a 7th day adventist, she informs her boss she can't work on Saturdays. Her boss consequently fires her and Oregon law determines she is fired for good cause. She applies for unemployment compensation but is denied (she won't work jobs they offer her and she was fired for good cause). She then sues under claim of free exercise clause. Decision - She wins because the balance is different from Braunfeld. In braunfeld revenue is affected and there's a day of uniformal rest (that levels the playing field) unlike in this case. What harm does it really do to give Sherbert unemployment compensation? Grants exemption. Takeaway - Compelling state interest test/least restrictive alternative test born: 1. Is there a substantial burden on the religion? 2. Is it outweighed by compelling state interest in putting that burden on these people? 3. Is there any way you can get to compelling interest without burdening religion?

Wisconsin v Yoder

Case Description - Yoder was convicted and fined for refusing to send his daughter to school after she completed the eighth grade. He didn't want his child to be corrupted (possible conflict of interest with the child?). Decision - Exemption granted, because when looking at Amish, we can see they're a successful and self sufficient community. No evidence that their way of life leaves a child ill-equipped for modern society. There is a less substantial state interest than if it were a general (non-amish) child. Grants exemption.

Braunfeld v Brown

Case Description - A small business owner who practiced the sabbath on saturday wanted an exemption from a law forbidding opening stores on sundays. Claims that if he were to close Saturday and Sunday he is disadvantaged. Decision - Rejected first the establishment clause claim (xmas tree argument) and then free exercise claim. Allowing him to open Sunday directly benefits him, however the Sunday law doesn't directly harm him. The law in this case is pure and treating everyone the same (Neutrality). Denies exemption.

Rosenberger v Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia

Case Description - At the university of virginia mandatory student fees were used to pay the costs of extracurricular activities, including the costs of printing student-edited publications. The school rejected "Wide Awake" (organization advancing the Christian perspective) under guidelines prohibiting the use of fees for the promotion of religious activity. Decision - Rejected the prohibition of fees because the program is wholly neutral and its purpose is to open a forum for speech and to support various student enterprises.

Bowen v Kendrick

Case Description - Challenge to the Adolescent Family Life Act which authorized federal grants to public and nonpublic organizations including religious denominations for counseling services and research in the area of premarital adolescent sexual relations and pregnancy. Decision - Adolescent Family Life Act deemed constitutional as it passed the three prong lemon test. Effect prong was a bit difficult as it directly mentions religious organizations in the law, however it it passes this portion of the test for two reasons: SCOTUS has never held religious institutions are prevented by the first amendment from participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs and that nothing on the face of the law indicates that a large portion of funds will be disbursed to "pervasively sectarian" institutions.

Debs v U.S.

Case Description - Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the socialist party, is arrested for "causing and inciting insubordination" and "refusal of duty in the armed forces". Even though he said he couldn't say all he wanted, he insinuated to his listeners they could understand what he was saying in between the lines. Decision - Conviction upheld. Although others might have been able to say the same words in other circumstances, there is a clear and present danger here as he is the leader of the socialist party who is openly opposed to the draft.

Abrams v US

Case Description - Leaflets are handed out by protesters with one titled "Long live the constitution of the united states!" and the other "Assert your rights!". They are convicted for attempting to stop munitions from being produced and sent to a possible effort to overthrow the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. (Keep in mind they're not opposed to munitions being sent to the WWI effort) Decision - Conviction is upheld. The first leaflet is no problem as it simply arouses discussion, however the latter is where the clear and present danger test is violated because they encourage people to "Assert their rights". Despite the fact they don't oppose World War I efforts, there's no possible way to determine where the munitions are going, thus the effort to prevent the delivery of munitions could affect World War I efforts. This is the first time in these string of cases Holmes dissents (Due to the fact their intention wasn't to obstruct WWI efforts)

Witters v Washington Department of Services for the Blind

Case Description - Payment to a visually handicapped person for vocational rehabilitation services, where the recipient sought to use the funds to pay his tuition at a christian university to become a minister. Decision - Held effect prong of lemon test was not violated and that the aid program provided no financial incentive for students to undertake sectarian education. Most of the money in the program going to secular education, and there is a secular purpose in the law. There is true private choice, no compulsion to obtain a religious education, and no encouraging one choice over another.

Lee v Weisman

Case Description - Rabbi invited to deliver nonsectarian prayer at a middle school graduation. Weisman, a student, raised an establishment clause challenge to the practice of prayer at the graduation. Decision - Psychology of coercion is at the basis of the argument. Although, attendance is not required, it is important culturally for one to attend their graduation. Asking a student to leave during the invocation and benediction is to "risk compelling conformity in an environment analogous to the classroom setting, where we have said the risk of compulsion is especially high". Rejected prayer. -The public response to this case is to largely ignore it.

Reynolds v. U.S.

Case Description - Reynolds, a Mormon, was charged with bigamy. First major decision on free exercise exemptions. Decision - Upheld application of a federal law making bigamy a crime in the territories to a Mormon claiming that polygamy was his religious duty. Denies exemption. Takeaway - No real problem with freedom of religion because secular and religious receive same treatment (Neutrality). Principle established: generally neutral applicable test (citizenship argument, everyone obeys the same law, and the law is blind to religion).

West Virginia State Bd. of Educ v. Barnette

Decision - Reversed Gobitis on freedom of speech grounds. Grants exemption.

Mueller v Allen (Another financial aid case)

Deemed constitutional b/c lemon test passed.

Lemon v Kurzman

Description Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act allowed the superintendent of public schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Appellants represented taxpayers who believed that the statute violated Establishment Clause. Decision: Court agreed that the statute violated the First Amendment/establishment clause. > Decision in the case established the "Lemon test" which detailed requirements for legislation concerning religion: 1. Statute must have secular legislative purposes (Purpose Prong) 2. Principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (Effect Prong) 3. Statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (Entanglement Prong)

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Description: New York State law required public schools open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which students recognized dependence on God. Students could absent themselves from the prayer if they wished. Parent sued, arguing that the law violated the Establishment Clause. Decision: (Justice Black) Court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer (this prayer was written by the state) violates the establishment clause. Just because students are allowed to absent themselves doesn't make it legal. Purpose of Establishment Clause - dont interfere with religion. Since religion is vastly important and Americans adhere to different beliefs, it's not appropriate for the government to endorse any particular beliefs. Rejected teacher-led prayer in school.

Zubik v Burwell

Description: Religious organizations argue that the contraceptive coverage mandate of ACA violates RFRA because the mandate requires the organizations to "facilitate" the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptive serves that they oppose on religious grounds. Decision: Unanimous in favor of Zubik. Judgement is vacated and returned to the lower courts. The Supreme Court asks both sides if there is a lesser restrictive means to get around the religious organizations' oppositions to the literal signing of the paperwork -- both sides agree that there is, and it is left between the insurance companies and the religious organizations themselves to figure out the best way in which to provide insurance without applying burden to the religious groups' objections.

Schenck v United States

Description: Schenck, a self-identified socialist, created and mailed pamphlets to draftees telling to disobey and go against the draft. He wanted them to assert their rights under the 13th amendment, and tear up the draft notices they received. He is instigating people to break the law under the Espionage Acts. The question is whether Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? Decision: His actions are not protected under the first amendment. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished. Establishes the "clear and present danger" doctrine as it relates to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Lynch v Donnelly

Description: A city in Rhode Island regular erected a Christmas display in which there was a variety of symbols, including a tree, Santa Claus, and a nativity scene. Did the inclusion of a nativity scene in the city's display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Decision: No, it did not. The court ruled that this scene "Americanized" Christmas, and there is not a strong connection to Christianity, even with the inclusion of the nativity scene. Context matters, and since the symbol is i with other symbols, the nativity scene is just there for historical significance and the creche insulates from religious connotation.

Frohwerk v United States

Description: Frohwerk authored a series of several editorials denouncing US involvement in WWI. The newspaper primarily circulated in a largely German community in Missouri. Frohwerk was convicted under the 1917 Espionage Acts. Did Frohwerk's conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment? Decision: The conviction was upheld. The Court reasserted its conclusion in Schenck v. United States (1919) that the First Amendment does not "give immunity for every possible use of language." The test for determining a clear and present danger are not absolute, but relative. Other newspaper could possibly publish this editorials without harm, but the court decided that this newspaper in particular could cause an obstruction by saying very little about the war in the context of the larger German community.

Elk Grove USD v Newdow

Description: Issue of whether a voluntary pledge recited in school could include the words "under god" Decision: The court did not technically rule on the constitutionality of the pledge. They ruled that Newdow did not have a standing in the court as he did not have proper custody of his daughter in school. Separate concurrences ruled that the pledge was constitutional. -Cannot be compared to Zorach because the argument relied on religion outside of school.

Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris

Description: Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children. Does this voucher program violate the establishment clause? Decision: The program does not violate the establishment clause. There is true public choice, and that the religious schools are one of many choices available to the parents. This program has a secular purpose, and any money going to the religious schools were indirect. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government.

Tilton v Richardson

Description: The federal Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provided construction grants to church-sponsored higher educational institutions. The grants were to be used for the construction of non-religious school facilities with a focus on science and research. Did the Act violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment? Decision: Does not violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The Court decided that the funded facilities would not be used for religious activities, and that the facilities were "indistinguishable from a typical state university facility."

Santa Fe ISD v DOE

Description: There is a student-run election to choose a speaker to "solemnize" football games through a speech. Students can choose the topic of this speech, whether it be prayer or something different. The speech is played through the school's public address system. Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Decision: Yes, it is in violation of the establishment clause. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events and that the District's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Also, similar reasoning as Lee. Much like people want to attend graduation, students still want to attend football games and this prayer is a form of indirect coercion. Rejected prayer.

Town of Greece v Galloway

Description: Town of Greece opened its legislative sessions with a prayer from an invited clergy member in the community. The town did not adopt any policy regarding who may lead the prayer or its content, but in practice, Christian clergy members delivered the vast majority of the prayers at the town's invitation. Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content? Decision: Does not violate the establishment clause. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, The court does not even say the prayer has to be non-denominational. To demand a non-denominational prayer would be government managing religion, a violation of the establishment clause. There was also no evidence that the board was trying to further or advance Christianity.

Allegheny vs ACLU

Description: Two different displays on government property. One was a nativity scene all by itself inside the courthouse, and another was the display of a Jewish Menorah outside of the building. Decision: The display inside of the courthouse was a blatant establishment of religion, and therefore ruled unconstitutional. The menorah, however, was ruled constitutional. Context matters. If the symbols were displayed together, the presence of one symbol defangs the other, and could be ruled constitutional.

Epperson v Arkansas

Invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools Court held that the Arkansas statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring "teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma"

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

Not a court case. Law passed by congress in response to Employment Division v Smith. Congress trying to essentially overrule the supreme court. Congress believed that state exemptions should be granted unless there a compelling state interest otherwise.

Widmar v Vincent

Separationism and inclusive principles come into conflict Common room in dorm of a state university allowed to be used on first-come-first-serve basis, dean initially refuses to allow prayer meeting (Cornerstone) to occur About freedom of speech- if you make the same inclusive offer to all clubs, including religious group, you are aiding freedom of speech not religion itself Treating the group the same=protection

Zobrest v Catalina

State hired signer for a religious school State employ directly delivering religious instruction Decision: > if Valid secular benefit to a group that then has the individual choice to decide. Establishment clause did not mandate exclusion from such funding of an otherwise eligible student attending parochial school.

Christian Legal Society at Hastings Law School vs Martinez

Univ of California Hastings College of Law could deny recognition and therefore funding to Christian Legal Society because the group limited its membership to those who shared a common faith and made members sign a pledge that they will not engage in homosexual behavior. Hastings said that state law requires all registered student organizations to allow "any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions regardless of their status or beliefs" CLS sued, but the court held that the school was neutral and reasonable, therefore the school did not violate CLS first amendment rights.

Accommodation principle

based in the fact that accommodation of religion does not necessarily imply endorsement of religion i.e. separation of church and state doesn't need to be so rigidly interpreted to the point of not celebrating thanksgiving - established by Zorach

Free Exercise

people should be free to practice their own religion on their own way as long as not infringing on other's rights

Neutrality principle

treat all religions (or religion and non religion) evenhandedly under the law