Con Law Religion

Question 1

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Answer 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.

Question 2

Everson v Board of Ed

Answer 2

In NJ, there was a voucher program established to reimburse parents who sent their children to school using public transportation; Issue: Whether the statute effectuated an impermissible governmental aide to religion by reimbursing parents who sent students to private religious institutions? Answer: No! The law would only indirectly benefit religion…It provided equal resources to both secular and religious institutions. It was simply created to get kids to school.

Question 3

Walz v Tax Commission

Answer 3

Walz brought suit against the New York City Tax Commission, challenging property tax exemptions for churches. Walz alleged that the exemptions forced him, as a taxpayer, to indirectly contribute to those churches. Issue: Whether property tax exemptions for churches is acceptable under the 1st amendment? Answer: NO! The court reasoned that taxation of churches would be considerably more government interaction with churches than an exemption, and that they wished to accommodate all churches equally. The Court noted that “benevolent neutrality” toward churches and religions was “deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life.”

Question 4

Texas Monthly v Bullock

Answer 4

Texas Monthly was a secular publication. The state of Texas offered tax exemption for all publication of religious periodicals. Texas claimed that they should at the least be exempt as well, or else the statute violated the 1st amendment’s establishment clause by tacitly endorsing religion. Issue: Whether exempting religious publications from taxes everyone else has to pay violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. Justice Brennan said this law directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations, and in referring to the Lemon Test, concludes the statute had no valid secular purpose.

Question 5

Lemon v Kurtzman

Answer 5

A PA and a RI law provided public financial support to “church-related educational institutions.” This included some salaries paid to church schools. Issue: Whether support of this kind violates the 1st amendment? Answer: To be constitutional, a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Further, the court noted that in order to ensure that the advancement of religious institutions was not taking place at tax payer expense, the court would be excessively entangled with religious activity.

Question 6

Lemon Test in 3 Parts

Answer 6

1. Does the statute/law have a valid secular purpose?; 2. Does the law neither advance nor inhibit religion?; 3. Does the law foster the excessive entanglement of government and religion?

Question 7

Mitchell v Helms

Answer 7

The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act provided for funding to schools for secular, non-ideological purposes. In Jefferson Parish Louisiana, there were about 30% of funds going to religious institutions. Issue: Whether this law, as applied to Jefferson Parish, violated the establishment clause? Answer: No. Shockingly, Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion which stated that simply because the law benefited a large number of religious institutions in this region did not mean that it violated the establishment clause. No indoctrination took place at the hands of the gov’t.

Question 8

Zelman v Simmons-Harris

Answer 8

A school voucher program in Ohio provided parents an opportunity to send their students to private (religious and non-religious) schools on the public dole. In the first year of the program, 96% of individuals using the program sent their students to religious schools. Issue: Whether this voucher program violates the 1st amendment establishment clause? Answer: No(???). The court reasoned that even though the program used government funds to benefit almost exclusively religious individuals, the fact that the deliberate choice of the participants happened to be almost 100% religious did not invalidate the neutrality and validity of the policy.

Question 9

Wallace v Jaffree

Answer 9

An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree’s children attended public schools in Mobile. Issue: Did Alabama law violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? Answer: Obviously yes. Citing the fact that there is no valid secular purpose for passing this law, the court concluded this law was passed exclusively for the advancement of religion in public schools.

Question 10

McCollum v Board of Ed

Answer 10

In this case, a group was formed to facilitate a new program which would provide religious instruction to students in public school classes while school was in session. Secular students would just have to go do other stuff. Issue: Whether the policy of providing religious education in public schools violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. The Court found that the Champaign system was “beyond question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith.”

Question 11

Zorach v Clauson

Answer 11

In the aftermath of McCollum, New York City began a program in which students in public schools could be dismissed from classroom activities for certain periods to participate in religious instruction elsewhere. Issue: Whether the NYC program violates the establishment clause? Answer: The Court held that the “released time” program neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion. The Court noted that public facilities were not being used for the purpose of religious instruction and that “no student was forced to go to the religious classroom.”

Question 12

Stone v Graham

Answer 12

A TX law required that the 10 commandments be placed in each classroom. Issue: Whether putting the 10 commandments in each class violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. There is obviously no secular reason to do this

Question 13

Epperson v Arkansas

Answer 13

Arkansas tried to legislate the truth away by banning the teaching of evolution in schools. Issue: Whether this anti-evolution bill violated the establishment clause? Answer: The law is clearly not motivated by facts or truth, and only was passed due to the conflict with the book of Genesis.

Question 14

Edwards v Aguillard

Answer 14

A LA law prohibited the teaching of evolution UNLESS accompanied by “creation science.” Issue: Whether this bill violated the establishment clause? Answer: Pointing to the reasoning in Epperson, it was evident to the court that this law was passed in order to defend the conflicting account of the origin of species found in Genesis.

Question 15

Board of Ed v Mergens

Answer 15

Students wanted to start an after school christian club. The students alleged that Westside’s refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide “equal access” to student groups seeking to express “religious, political, philosophical, or other content” messages. Issue: Whether the public school could deny access to this christian group (ironically on establishment grounds)? Answer: The school was wrong and should have permitted the group. Since they had provided accommodations for other groups, they should have permitted the christian group access to their facilities. The Equal Access Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of philosophical, religious, etc considerations and thus the school should have permitted them.

Question 16

Good News Club v Milford Central School

Answer 16

The Good News Club wanted to operate at a school which allowed secular groups. The school said “nuh uh” due to the religious content of the club. Issue: Whether the school’s refusal to offer the Good News Club their accommodations was constitutional? Answer: No. Since the school had allowed access to other secular groups, they had created a limited public forum. This means that any decisions to admit or not admit a group must be viewpoint neutral.

Question 17

Allegheny County v ACLU

Answer 17

Two holiday displays (one creche and another with a menorah and christmas tree among other things) were erected at the county courthouse. Issue: Whether a county courthouse may erect both/either display? Answer: The creche (nativity scene) was invalidated under the Est Clause, as it stood alone and ostensibly as an endorsement of christianity. The grab bag display was OK because it was multi-faceted and gave no priority to one holiday.

Question 18

McCreary County v ACLU

Answer 18

The count wanted to post the 10 commandments (with no accompanying documents like say the Bill of Rights) in county buildings. Issue: Whether a county may place the 10 commandments on its property when not for a particular purpose other than to endorse religion? Answer: “When the gov’t acts with the…purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Est Clause value of official religious neutrality.”

Question 19

Van Orden v Perry

Answer 19

Rather large 10 commandments monuments sat between the TX capitol and SC. It sat among many secular displays and monuments and had been there for decades, and privately donated. Issue: Whether ANY display of the 10 commandments violates the establishment clause? Answer: No. So long as the placement of the 10 commandments can be shown to have some apparent purpose aside from the promotion of one religion or another, it can be held to have a valid secular purpose for its erection.

Question 20

Lee v Weisman

Answer 20

A school decided that they would have a religious figure put on a religious invocation and benediction at their graduation. My bet is that Weisman was one of the non-christians that sued. Issue: Whether a graduation ceremony may include a prayer service? Answer: No. Kids do not have to be at graduation, but a vast majority elect to attend. In a public school, it amounts to an endorsement of a religion, which violates non-believers’ rights (as well as adherents to other faiths) to not have a particular ideology pushed upon them.

Question 21

EGUSD v Newdow

Answer 21

Michael Newdow challenged a school policy to lead the students in a voluntary recitation of the flag salute each day, which includes the words “Under God.” Newdow maintained that even being made to listen to “under god” was a tacit endorsement of religion and the Establishment Clause forbade it. Issue: Whether the policy of the school violated the 1st amendment establishment clause? Answer: The court denied the case for lack of standing, but 3 justices (ranging from O’Connor all the way to Thomas) wrote concurring opinions which supported the right of schools to engage in this practice. Keep in mind though: No decision reached.

Question 22

Santa Fe School District v Doe

Answer 22

The SFSD would regularly had students deliver prayers before varsity football games (team must have sucked). This was challenged as an endorsement of religion. Issue: Whether the est clause is violated when prayers are performed at varsity football games? Answer: Yes. For the court’s liking, the act amounted to an endorsement of religion, and forced students who were there to receive credits (band members, cheerleaders) to listen to a message for which they were a captive audience.

Question 23

Capitol Square Review v Pinette

Answer 23

The Klan decided to cheer up everyone during the holidays by placing a cross in an area across from the state capitol that was traditionally used for public access/expression of ideas. Their permit was denied on est clause grounds. Issue: Did the Board’s denial of a permit to the Ku Klux Klan violate free speech under the First Amendment? Answer: Even Justice Thomas said “yes, the Klan has that right.” The court said it amounted to being constitutionally equivalent to secular speech, given the forum, and a compelling interest with a narrowly tailored restriction would be necessary to deny the permit.

Question 24

Salazar v Buono

Answer 24

Salazar wanted to erect a Buddhist monument where a war memorial in the form of a wooden cross had stood for years. He was denied, and sued. He was found to be correct, but the government did a land swap so as to put the monument in private hands, thus rendering moot Salazar’s claim. Issue (upon which the court has so far ruled): Whether the erection of a cross on federal lands violates the establishment clause? Answer: The court stated that with respect to establishment clause challenges, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm”

Question 25

Free Exercise

Answer 25

The Free Exercise of religion is exactly what it sounds like: the extent to which one may actuate particular abstract notions of their faith(s). Congress shall may no law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Question 26

Reynolds v US

Answer 26

Leader of criminal syndicate Church of Mormon challenged the federal law prohibited bigamy/polygamy on the grounds that god told him to own women like livestock. Issue: Whether the 1st amendment’s Free Exercise clause protected what is otherwise criminal behavior? Answer: A unanimous court said that the free exercise of religion must be done within the constraints of what is deemed legal activity. The 1st amendment, for instance, also does not allow for human sacrifice.

Question 27

Cantwell v Connecticut

Answer 27

Jehovah’s Witnesses, yet again, sued for a violation of their free exercise rights in that the city of Cantwell required that solicitation by conducted only after receiving a permit; the issuance of these permits was discretionary and included determinations between what are “real” religions and not. Issue: Whether the Witnesses’ rights had been violated by this solicitation permit policy? Answer: Yes. The court held unanimously that the policy of requiring permits to solicit door to door was valid, but the discretion allowed the permitting board to discriminate against particular religions, including this one, and therefore was unconstitutional.

Question 28

West Virginia Board of Ed v Barnette

Answer 28

It’s back! This time the compulsory flag salute is analyzed under free exercise concerns. Issue: Whether the compulsory flag salute violates the free exercise rights of children involved? Answer: Yes, for the obvious reason it may interfere with their free exercise of restraint from submitting to a national government.

Question 29

Hobbie v Unemployment Appeals Comm’n

Answer 29

Hobbie was a 7th day adventist and thus observed a sabbath beginning Friday evening and ending Saturday evening. She was fired, and tried to collect unemployment. She was denied, as she was dismissed for misconduct having to do with her job. Issue: Whether denying Hobbie benefits due to her having been dismissed for her religious convictions violated her free exercise rights? Answer: Yes! The near unanimous court said that this would amount to punishing a person content to live with the consequences of losing employment so as to freely practice her faith uniquely, and thus unconstitutionally.

Question 30

Jimmy Swaggart v Board of Equalization

Answer 30

TV minister and frequent user of prostitutes Jimmy Swaggart sold religious materials all over the US. When CA assessed him for having sold materials in his state, he petitioned for a refund on the grounds that it was a religious organization he ran. He was denied. Issue: Whether all church related activities are to be afforded the same immunity from taxes as, for instance, churches are from property taxes? Answer: No. The law in CA was applied uniformly for sales and did not in any way inhibit the free exercise of Mr Swaggart’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Question 31

United States v Lee

Answer 31

Lee was an Amish person who contested paying into Social Security on the grounds that the Amish had previously been found to be justified in refusing participation in the program. Issue: Whether forcing the Amish to pay into SS was a violation of their free exercise rights? Answer: No. The government evidently found it perfectly acceptable for them to not receive money, but when it came to not paying money, justice Berger found that “not all burdens on religious freedom are unconstitutional” so long as a compelling governmental interest can be demonstrated.

Question 32

Gilette v US

Answer 32

Gilette was a “conscientious objector” to the Vietnam war (but not all wars). He maintained the draft board policy restricting conscientious objector status to only those who are pacifists generally. Issue: Whether the free exercise rights under the 1st amendment should protect a person whose religion prevents their participation in a specific conflict? Answer: No. The draft board was held to have narrowly tailored their conscientious objector exception properly and were vindicated by the court.

Question 33

Bob Jones University v US

Answer 33

Bob Jones hated black people and didn’t allow them to come to his school. His private school was denied tax exempt status on the basis that he hated black people so much he wouldn’t even let them come to his school. Issue: Whether Bob Jones University’s 1st amendment free exercise rights were violated by denying his tax exempt status? Answer: No. The court said the “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life” for which one was rewarded were probably not best achieved by segregation. Therefore, the IRS was correct in concluding he was undeserving of a free ride.

Question 34

Employment Division v Smith

Answer 34

The Peyote Case! Two Native Americans challenged an Oregon law that, for some silly reason, said that drug counselors couldn’t use drugs. Their religion required they use peyote for certain rites, and were thus fired. Issue: Whether the 1st amendment protects one’s right to get totally schwasted if their god wants it? Anwer: No. The court said the freedom of religion was not a trump card over what is categorically illegal behavior (think back to the Reynolds bigamy case).

Question 35

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v Hialeah

Answer 35

Santeria is a spooooky religion which uses animal sacrifices and wanted to set up a place of worship in FL. FL had a law which forbade “killing, slaughtering, or sacrificing animals for any ritual, regardless of whether [the animal is eaten]. Issue: Whether this was a valid restriction on their 1st amendment free exercise rights? Answer: This law is clearly not neutral and even explicitly forbids rituals (see: religious practices). The state provided no compelling general interest for this law (although they said even cruelty to animals as a justification would have still lost to the 1st amendment challenge). Basically, a law whose effects are clearly discriminatory against a particular religious freedom will be treated with the highest scrutiny.

Question 36

Locke v Davey

Answer 36

WA state legislature created a scholarship fund for talented students, but only if they were going to pursue secular degrees and non-devotional theological studies. The only thing they would not subsidize is helping a student go to school to eventually preach or proselytize. Issue: Whether the scholarship fund was valid under the 1st amendment? Answer: The scholarship program was upheld in that it was a state initiative and, the court said, they can determine just how much they want to contribute to religion (if at all). Also, there was no unequal treatment, in that any student could still seek to become a pastor at state universities, but would simply be ineligible for the scholarship.