Question 2 nationals Religion

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)- tax payer money for travel for Catholic schools

A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy. The divided Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the state (The New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transportation costs to parochial schools did not violate the Establishment Clause). Because It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. Hugo Black's majority opinion is important because it etched into law that interpretation of Madison and Jefferson that there is a strong wall of separation between church and state Incorporated establishment clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)- rabbi at graduation

A rabai was invited to speak at a graduation ceremony for a public high school. One of the parents of the graduates didn't want the Rabai speaking, so he tried getting a restraining order against the rabai, but it wasn't granted. Later, after prayer was recited at the ceremony, the parent (Weisman) filed for a perminent injunction, so Lee and other officials couldn't get people to speak at school events. Lee took this case to supreme court which ruled in a 5-4 the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion

Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn (2011)- tuition tax credits

Arizona tax payers challenged the constitutionality of Arizona's tuition tax credit in the AZ federal district court. They claimed the tax credit violated the Establishment Clause because it gave money to private religious schools. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot prove that the Arizona tuition tax credit involves the appropriation or expenditure of state funds. They reasoned that the challengers to the tax credit in Arizona lacked standing under Article III.

Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)- funding for religious newspaper

Christian school newspaper asked for activities funding from the school. The school however, refused saying that it promoted one religions beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this violated the First Amendment because the University's denial of funding to Rosenberger, due to the content of his message, imposed a financial burden on his speech and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The exclusion of several views is as offensive to free speech as the exclusion of only one. The University must provide a financial subsidy to a student religious publication on the same basis as other student publications.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)- school prayer

Each morning school children had to recite a prayer, it was worded so that it would not favor one religion over another. It was argued that the refutation was voluntary. The Court found that the neutrality of the prayer and the voluntary aspect were irrelevant and violated the Establishment Clause. Stewart dissented citing "In God We Trust" on our currency. The case only dealt with school prayer and not the more practised bible readings, and announced no stand or strict legal definition of establishment. There was a TON of public backlash

Aguilar v. Felton (1985)- funding

Funds from Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provided funds for deprived children from low income families, were being used to pay parochial school teachers. The Court ruled 5-4 the this violated the Establishment Clause. As part of New York's program, teachers were directed to avoid involvement in religious materials and activities in their classrooms. This, as well as the actions of school administrators and field supervisors who monitored classroom activities for religious content, posed constitutional problems for the majority. Involving agents of the city in extensive monitoring increased the potential for "divisiveness along religious lines" and violated the intent of the Establishment Clause which is to prevent the intrusion of church and state on each other's respective domain.

Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)- headwear in the army

Goldman was an orthodox jew in the Air Force. An air force regulation stated that he could not wear his Yarmulke. The Court held that the Air Force regulation did not violate the Constitution. Since allowing overt religious apparel "would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations," the Air Force regulation was necessary and legitimate. In 1987, Congress passed legislation which reversed this decision and allowed members of the armed forces to wear religious apparel in a "neat and conservative" manner.

Good News Club v. Milford Central High (2002)- religious clubs meeting after school

Good News Club was a Christian youth group. They sought to use school building for some after school activities and sponsorship of the club. The School said no. The club sued saying that their 1st amendment rights had been violated. The Court 6-3 held that "Milford's restriction violates the Club's free speech rights and that no Establishment Clause concern justifies that violation." "When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," wrote Justice Thomas.

Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez (2010)

Hastings College of Law refused to accept the Christian Legal Society Chapter as a an official student organization because 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." Did the Ninth Circuit err when its holding runs directly contrary to the Seventh Circuit's 2006 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Walker? The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student organization forum; and, therefore, did not transgress First Amendment limitations, and that a public college does not abridge the First Amendment by declining to acknowledge a student group that refuses to permit all students to join the group, in accordance with state law.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)- animal sacrifice

Hialeah city ordinances were basically directed at the church in limiting their practice of animal sacrifice. In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. The ordinance was too vague and directed at a specific religious group.

Holt v. Hobbs (2014)- inmate

Hobbs was an inmate and practicing muslim. Holt argued that growing a beard was a necessary part of the practice of his religion, that the grooming policy significantly burdened his ability to do so, and that the grooming policy was therefore a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) The Court unanimously ruled that The Arkansas Department of Corrections policy on beards violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The Court held that, while providing substantial protection of religious exercise, RLUIPA allows prison officials to test the sincerity of religious beliefs to prevent these from being used for illicit conduct. Holt met the standard for accommodation established in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. —that an accommodation must be based on a sincerely held religious belief Sotamayor and Ginsburg disagreed on this point.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)- solicitation

Jehovah's Witnesses were soliciting flyers door to door and were arrested for "breach in peace" and soliciting without a permit. The Court held in a unanimous decision that The local ordinance requiring a permit to solicit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First Amendment.

Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant & Barber v. Bryant

Judge Reeves found that HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which requires separation between Church and State, in two ways. First, HB 1523 makes special protections available for those holding specific religious beliefs, but excludes others from these protections. Second, it violates the principle that a religious accommodation cannot cause harm to others - HB 1523's "broad religious exemption comes at the expense of other citizens." 5th Circuit Court ruled that they did not have standing to sue because when they filled the lawsuits the law had not gone into effect, so they lacked standing to sue because they could not prove any violation. The Supreme Court also denied to hear the cases.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)- vouchers

Ohio's voucher program provides tuition aid attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and non-religious schools in the area can participate. Tuition aid is distributed due to parents based on financial necessity and where the aid is spent depends solely on the upon where parents choose to enroll their children. The Court ruled 5-4 that the voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."

Initial Attempts. Bradfield v. Roberts (1899)

One of the earliest challenges to government action on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. Congress gave funds to a church-run hospital in the District of Columbia to be used in the care of veterans. The court held that the funding from Congress didn't violate the Establishment Clause because the hospital was created by an act of Congress. The court found it irrelevant that the hospital was staffed by members of the Catholic Church because their authority was circumscribed by the act of Congress. The purpose of establishing the hospital was not factional; rather, it was to provide care to the sick and disabled persons in the District of Columbia. Because they had a secular purpose, the statutes that created the hospital and provided for its funding did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

One of the questions in this case is if the travel ban against 8 majority muslim countries violates the establishment clause.

Mueller v. Allen (1983)- tax deductions

Parents of parochial School children and public school children qualified for tax deductions. The court ruled 5-4 that this did not violate the Establishment Clause because the law did not have "the primary effect of advancing the sectarian aims of the non-public schools," nor did it "excessively entangle" the state in religion. Most importantly, argued Justice Rehnquist, the deductions were available to all parents; in effect, Minnesota did not "confer any imprimatur of state approval" on religious schools. Thus, the law passed the Court's three-pronged test

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)- providing secular educational services in religious schools

Pennsylvania law reimbursed nonpublic religious schools for certain secular educational services (teacher paychecks, books, materials). The Court ruled that these laws violated the first amendment. A statute must pass the three prongs of the Lemon Test in order to be declared constitutional. The Court held that both the state statutes in question had secular legislative purposes because they reflected the desire of the states to ensure minimum secular education requirements were being met in the non-public schools. The Court did not reach a holding regarding the second prong of the test, but it did find that the statutes constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion. Created Lemon Test 1. Secular legislative purpose 2. The statute's primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3. The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)- bible verses

Pennsylvania state law required students were to recite bible verses and the Lord's prayer at the beginning of school everyday. The Supreme Court ruled that State sponsored prayer in public schools violates the establishment clause and the free exercise clause since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Even more backlash 150 amendments to return prayer back to the classroom... none have passed

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878)- polygamy

Reynolds a Mormon was practicing polygamy which violated a Utah state law. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected an absolute interpretation of the clause and instead sought to draw a distinction between behavior it did and did not protect. There is a distinction between opinions (beliefs) and actions (practices).

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)- work on Sabbath Day

Sherbert was fired from her job when she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The state denied her benefits. The Court ruled that he state's eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on this basic First Amendment right.

Grand Rapids School District v. Ball (1985)- nonsecular teachings in a public school

Six taxpayers filed suit against the school district and state officials and alleged that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by using public funds to pay for private (and religious) education. The Court ruled 5-4 with the majority opinion written by justice Brennan that the programs violated the Establishment Clause the statute failed the Lemon test because it had the effect of advancing religious agendas and it unnecessarily entangled the government and religion. The statute advanced religion in three ways: the teachers may inadvertently or intentionally instruct from a religious perspective; the programs themselves may serve as a symbolic link between the government and religion in the eyes of impressionable children; and the programs essentially serve as a government subsidy for religious instruction. The Court recognized that the intent of the programs was to provide secular education, but there was too great a risk of the religious environment influencing the children's instruction.

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)- the use of Peyote for religious purposes

Smith was fired from his job as a result of smoking Peyote for a religious ceremony. Oregon law prohibited the use of peyote. Smith was denied unemployment benefits. PEYOTE CASE. The Court did not use the Sherbert- Yoder Test and instead created the smith test that stated that the free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual from the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law if general applicability on the ground that the law commands behavior inconsistent with a person's religious teachings. This was a very controversial ruling and congress was moving to pass legislation against it (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Texas Monthly inc v. Bullock (1989)- religious publications paying taxes

Texas offered a tax exemption to religious publications. Texas Monthly, Inc, a nonreligious publisher, claimed that this promoted religion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Does a state violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Press Clause by exempting religious publications from paying taxes that all nonreligious publications must pay? Yes, 6-3 decision, the Court applied the Lemon Test. the exemption did not have a secular purpose since it could not "reasonably be seen as removing a significant state-imposed deterrent to the free exercise of religion." Since taxing religious publications did not inhibit the exercise of religion, a state could not singularly remove taxes for religious publications while still taxing nonreligious publications. This would use state mechanisms to give religious publishers an advantage over nonreligious publishers in violation of the Establishment Clause.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)- Ten Commandments

The ACLU sued three Kentucky counties in federal district court for displaying framed copies of the 10 commandments in court houses and public schools. The ACLU argued that these displays violated the Establishment Clause. The district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the displays violated the establishment clause. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the Ten Commandments displays in public schools and in courthouses violate the First Amendment's establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. The Court held that an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion.

Blaine Amendment

The Blaine Amendment was first proposed in 1875 by Congressmen James G. Blaine, however the amendment eventually failed. The amendment prohibited. States from funding religious schools with public money. 38 of the 50 US states have added provisions that forbid direct government aid to educational institutions with a religious affiliation to their state constitutions. For example, California's constitution prohibits its state and local governments from funding schools and "other institutions" that are "controlled by any religious creed" and Texas' constitution prohibits public money from being used "for the benefit" of any sect or religion. Critics argue that this constitutes a form of discrimination. They believe that funding prohibitions limit the ability of the parents to decide what is best for their children. School Vouchers As more states consider using vouchers that parents may use to pay private school tuition, prohibitions against federal funding for religious schools will become widely debated In 2012, Florida voters rejected a constitutional repeal its Blaine Amendment prohibiting state funding for religious schools This rejected measure was a result of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Holmes which ruled that the state's voucher program which allowed parents to use state-issued vouchers to pay private religious schools was unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)- moment of silence

The Court did not overturn Engel or Abington and used the Lemon test to find an Alabama law authorizing a daily period of silence in all public school unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the law's primary purpose was not secular. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion. The explicit purpose was to encourage "meditation or voluntary prayer."

Marsh v. Chambers (1984)- congressional prayer

The Court found nothing unconstitutional about the Nebraska legislature hiring Presbyterian minister to say a public prayer before each daily session. Chief Justice Burger's opinion relied heavily on how there is a long history starting with First Congress of beginning a session with prayer. The Court did not apply jurisprudence with school prayer or the Lemon Test. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)- nativity scene

The Court ruled 5-4 that a Christmas and nativity scene that the Retail Merchants Association in Pawtucket Rhode Island had been erecting in a park owned by a nonprofit organization was not a violation of the establishment clause. Justice Burger pointed out how we have Thanksgiving and Christmas as national holidays and that the nativity scene was only part of the display (Christmas was so much a part of our heritage that it came close to representing a national, nonsectarian celebration, rather than a religious holiday.) The Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful or surreptitious effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church

Santa Fe v. Doe (2000)- student led prayer

The Court ruled 6-3 that student led prayer over the loudspeaker at a football game violated the establishment clause because the practice constituted an endorsement of religion, the policy contained an element of coercion, although generally voluntary for some students, attendance was not optional, and the policy was a violation of the Lemon Test's requirement of non secular purpose. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority.

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)- Ten Commandments

The Court ruled that the Ten Commandments erected outside of the Texas state capitol did not violate the First Amendment. Breyer opined that the Ten Commandments was just one of the displays on the capitol grounds and that there was no evidence of secular purpose. Additionally it was part of the nations history and the Ten Commandments had a historical meaning. 4 justices dissented on the grounds that there is no place under the Constitution for the state to erect a monument to a divinely given code of law. Justices Stevens "mockery of the constitutional ideal that government must remain neutral"

Stone v. Graham (1980)- Ten Commandments outside of classrooms

The Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public classroom. 5 justice majority concluded that the law had a religious purpose which violated the first prong of the Lemon Test. The Court found that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature."

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)- evolution

The Court unanimously ruled that Arkansas state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary theories directly contradicted the biblical account of Creation. This use of state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable to a particular sect ammounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion The majority opinion relied heavily on Everson (because the Lemon Test had not been created). The law was not neutral and "the law was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory."

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)- RFRA applies to corporations

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stated that employment-based health care plans must provide certain types of preventive contraception. This goes act the Hobby Lobby owners' belief to run the store under biblical precepts. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company's owners? The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception coverage to employees based on a religious objectionsince they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. 1. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government's interests. 2. a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services' exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. 3. the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, as the principal dissent fears. RBG disent 1. majority's decision was precluded by the Court's decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence of an otherwise valid statute. 2. the majority opinion misconstrued the RFRA as a bold legislative statement with sweeping consequences. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA.

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000, RLUIPA) prohibited government from imposing a substantial burden on prisoners' religious exercise, unless the burden furthered a "compelling government interest." Prisoners in Ohio alleged in federal district court that prison officials violated RLUIPA by failing to accomodate the inmates' exercise of their "nonmainstream" religions. The prison officials argued that the act improperly advanced religion and thus violated the First Amendment's establishment clause In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that, on its face, RLUIPA made an accommodation allowed by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law was an effort to alleviate the "government-created burden" on religious exercise that prisoners faced. Nor did section three discriminate between mainstream and non-mainstream religions. The Court did point out that constitutional problems could arise if RLUIPA were enforced improperly and religious prisoners received favored treatment, or if religious exercise and security concerns were not properly balanced.

*Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006)

The UDV brought suit in federal court to prevent the government from interfering with UDV'd uses of hoasca a drug prohibited by the Controlled Substance act but used in the church's religious ceremonies. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 require the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession and use of an otherwise illegal drug by a religious organization when Congress has found that the drug has a high potential for abuse, is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and violates an international treaty when imported or distributed? In a unanimous decision the Court held that yes that the government had failed to prove a compelling interest in regulating the UDV's use of drugs for religious purposes. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the government's argument that the Controlled Substances Act could accommodate no exceptions. On the contrary, Justice Roberts wrote, the Court is required by the RFRA to examine individual religious freedom claims and grant exceptions to generally-applicable laws where no compelling government interest can be shown.

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)- town hall meeting prayers

The town of Greece, New York is governed by a 5 member town board that conducts official business at monthly public meetings. Beginning in 1999, the town meetings began with a prayer given by an invited member of the local clergy. There were no policy regarding who could lead the prayer or its content, however Christian clergy members delivered the vast majority of the prayers at the town's invitation. The Court ruled 5-4 that the prayers at the town hall meetings did not violate the Establishment Clause because the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion's role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017)

Trinity Lutheran Church operates as a licensed preschool and day care. the Church wished to apply for a grant to get tire scraps grant. They were denied the grant because the Missouri Constitution states, "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion." Does the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? 7-2 decision The exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religionThe Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protected the freedom to practice religion and subjects laws that burden religious practice to strict scrutiny. First Amendment precedent had established that laws that deny an otherwise generally available benefit because of religious status are unconstitutional, though laws that are neutral and generally applicable may be upheld even if they hamper religion. the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' policy of denying religious organizations from its Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grants violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it discriminated against otherwise eligible organizations based solely on their religious character. Because the state's interest in using this policy was simply to draw a wide berth around religious establishment concerns, it was not a sufficiently compelling interest

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)- Amish students in high school

Two members of the Old Order Amish religion, Jonas Yoder and Wallace Millerand Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church were convicted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public school until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to public schools after the 8th grade arguing that high school attendance went against their religious beliefs. The court held in a unanimous decision that the individual's interest in the free excersize of religion under the first amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.

Waltz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)- tax exemptions

Waltz brought a suit challenging property tax exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions. Majority ruled in favor of the state because there was a secular purpose (Abrington), AND not an excessive government entanglement with religion (new) created only "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches."

Hurley v. Irish American Gay Lesbian Bisexual Group of Bostons

the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was authorized to hold a st patty's day parade. They did not let the American GLB participate in the event. GLB group sued saying that this violated an anti discrimination law. the State Court's ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate[s] the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say."

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)- RFRA not applied to states

the justices struck down the RFRA as applied to the states, finding that the law violated both the separation of powers and the principles of federalism. Congress had intruded on the power of the judicial branch. Violated the separation of powers by when it attempted to replace the Court's interpretation of the Constitution (Smith test). The national legislature had no authority to command the state governments to adopt the compelling interest-least restrictive