Court Cases Flashcards
Engle v. Vitale
Parties involved: Steven Engle, a Jewish man, supported by Jewish organizations, Unitarian church members, NY Society for Ethical Culture
William J. Vitale, Jr., School Board President
Facts: On November 30, 1951, NY Board of Regents approved a non- denominational prayer for schools. Students given a choice to remain silent or to be excused from the prayer. The Prayer: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.” Should it matter that students
are not required to participate?
Legal Questions: Does a voluntary, non-denominational prayer sponsored by the state violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution? Does prohibiting a public school teacher from engaging in
prayer during school hours violate the Free Exercise Clause?
Main Points of the opinions:
Majority Opinion- Justice Hugo Black emphasized that the government should not compose official prayers and that even voluntary prayers can be seen as a government endorsement of religion. The Court argued that the state should remain neutral in religious matters.
Concurring Opinion- Douglas emphasized the importance of religious freedom and the need for the government to maintain a neutral stance toward religion. He argued that the state should not interfere in matters of personal belief and that even voluntary, non-denominational prayer could be seen as a form of government endorsement of religion. He believed that allowing such prayers in schools could lead to coercion, particularly on impressionable children, and could undermine the pluralistic nature of American society.
Dissenting Opinion- Stewart dissented from the majority ruling, arguing that the voluntary prayer was non-denominational and posed no threat to the separation of church and state. He viewed the prayer as a traditional practice that was part of the nation’s heritage and a way to promote moral values without coercing participation.
Lynch v. Donnelly
Parties involved: lead plaintiff Daniel Donnelly- state shouldn’t put up Christmas display because it violates the establishment clause
lead defendant Dennis Lynch- stated that it’s important for commercial purposes and history
Facts: Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Christmas display owned by a nonprofit org. Had a creche, Christmas tree, banner. Donnelly and the ACLU brought issue to the court. District court and the court of appeals said the city was not withstanding the religious significance.
Legal Questions: Does the inclusion of the nativity scene in the holiday display amount to government endorsement of a religion? Does a nativity scene in a public holiday infringe on rights protected by the establishment clause?
Main points of the Opinions:
Justice Burger’s Opinion- held there was no violation of the establishment clause. It’s inevitable to separate church and state. Not enough evidence of government favoritism for a particular religion. If the nativity scene is too big of a sign, then everything is too big of a sign. Says as long as it has one secular purpose it’s okay
Justice O’ Connors Concurrence- Also believed the creche wasn’t establishing a religion. Looks through the eyes of an observer saying a regular person wouldn’t think of the religious value of it. Endorsement test- looks at the primary purpose is secular of lemon test
Justice Brennan’s Dissent- Santa would have been okay for commercial purposes so the creche was NOT necessary. Says it’s offensive to say the creche is not secular and offensive to use for commercial value. Does agree that total separation is not possible. Talks about ceremonial deism and acknowledges some religious values like the pledge of allegiance and chapels in hospitals. These do not promote a religion but do provide a safe space.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Parties involved:
Michael Hardwick: A gay man who was arrested after police saw him and another man having consensual sex in his home
Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia
Facts: Upheld Georgia anti-sodomy law. Hardwick challenged the law, arguing that it violated his rights to privacy and equal protection under the law, as protected by the Constitution. He contended that the law targeted homosexual conduct and was therefore discriminatory. The state of Georgia defended the law, asserting that it served legitimate state interests in promoting morality and public health.
Legal Questions: Is the Georgia sodomy law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause? Does the state have the authority to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults? Does the Constitution provide a right to privacy that protects consensual homosexual conduct?
Main points of the Opinions:
The majority opinion- written by Justice Byron White argued that the right to privacy did not extend to homosexual acts and that the state had the authority to regulate moral behavior.
Burger’s Concurrence- Proscriptions against sodomy have “ancient roots.” Bible, Roman law, and even English common law condemns it.
Blackmun’s Dissent: “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than it was laid down in the time of Henry IV…and still more revolting if the grounds…have long since vanished, and the rule simply persists from a blind limitation of the past.” What matters is “judicial precedent rooted in reason” (204). Our religious instincts belong to ourselves. This is a privacy issue, grounded in 4th Amendment protections
against search and seizure.
Reynolds v. US
Parties involved: George Reynolds.- church mormon leader and was charged with bigamy and imprisoned. Knew it was against the law but his religion requires it.
US Government- first argued that it was not against polygamy and later ruled that it wasn’t morally right
Facts: R Book of Mormon published in 1830, and by the time they arrive in Utah, LDS communities have been
harassed in settlements across the country. When the arrive, they declare Utah their “Zion.” It is a territory, not wholly under federal authority. In 1862, the US passes the Morrill Act for the suppression of bigamy and also restricted the ownership of property of religious organizations to no more than $50,000. Mormons argued that plural marriages are biblical, Ten
Commandments don’t prohibit them, and they have a “different interpretation” of the New Testament. Mormons argue that this is a “state’s rights” case, and they are entitled to self-determination without federal intervention.
Legal Questions: Is it dangerous to hold an offender might escape punishment because he religiously believed the law to which he had broken ought to have never to have been made? Does the US have a historical basis for stating that polygamy has always been a societal offense against society?
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority Opinion- Justice Waite says that Polygamy is just not something good, European people do. That kind of behavior belongs to “Asiatic” or “African” people. There is a wall of separation, but a person has “no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Because America has never accepted plural marriage as a “social duty,” Mormons are not really a “religion” as it is contemplated under the First Amendment. Citing Professor Lieber, Justice Waite argues that polygamy
leads to patriarchy. Monogamy is about “mutual reverence,” not just sex. Polygamy is about sex, and “men’s selfish desire,” leading to men having despotic power over women. Polygamy is “subversive of good order.” Because this is bad behavior, such actions are “not religious.” Slippery slope: if polygamy is licensed, what’s next? Human sacrifice?
Braunfield v. Brown
Parties involved: David Braunfeld, a Jewish businessman who owned a retail store. He challenged the Pennsylvania Sunday closing law, arguing that it infringed on his religious beliefs and practices.
Joseph Brown, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who defended the state’s Sunday closing law, asserting that it was a legitimate regulation aimed at promoting the common good and maintaining a day of rest.
Facts: Braunfeld’s religious observance meant that he could not open his store on Saturdays, and the Sunday closing law further restricted his ability to operate his business on the day when many customers were available to shop. This dual closure impacted his income and business viability.
SCOTUS held that Sunday closings did not violate the Free Exercise of Orthodox Jews because the government lacked an “easily administered alternative” to achieve its purpose, a uniform day of rest.
Legal Questions: Does the Pennsylvania Sunday closing law violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? Is the state’s interest in promoting a day of rest and moral standards sufficient to justify the restriction on religious practice? Does the law create a situation of unequal treatment for businesses based on religious practices?
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority opinion- emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in promoting a day of rest and ensuring public order. They argued that the Sunday closing law served to foster a common day of rest, which could have broader social benefits. While acknowledging the importance of the Free Exercise Clause, the Court found that the law did not target or discriminate against Braunfeld’s religious practices specifically. They maintained that the law applied uniformly to all businesses and did not seek to undermine religious observances. The majority applied a balancing test, weighing Braunfeld’s religious rights against the state’s interests. They concluded that the state’s interest in regulating business practices on Sunday justified the restriction on Braunfeld’s ability to operate his store on that day.
Justice Brennan’s Dissent- argued that, while the statute did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, it should have been found
unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause, because it requires a faithful business owner to choose between his business and his religion.
Sherbert v. Verner
Parties involved: Adell H. Sherbert Seventh-day Adventist
Charles V. Verner, Chair South Carolina Employment Security Commission
Facts: In 1959, the appellant, Ms. Adell H. Sherbert was a Seventh-day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturday and was fired. She applied for employment benefits under the South Carolina
Unemployment Compensation Act, which was chaired by Charlie Verner, and was denied. They found that she did not qualify for the benefits as she had proved she was “not available” for work since she rejected several suitable jobs, without cause. Sherbert appealed the decision on the basis that denying her benefits violated her free exercise of her religion and both the trial court and the state Supreme Court sided with Verner. Justice Brennan held that the denial of unemployment benefits to Sherbert imposed a burden on her free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
Legal Questions: The central question was whether the denial of unemployment benefits constituted an infringement on Sherbert’s right to freely exercise her religion. The Sherbert Test.
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority Opinion- Douglas authored the majority opinion, asserting that the denial of unemployment benefits placed a significant burden on Sherbert’s free exercise of religion. He argued that the state’s refusal to accommodate her religious practices constituted a violation of the First Amendment.
Stewart’s Concurrence- Stewart joined the majority opinion but wrote a separate concurrence to emphasize his belief in the necessity of protecting the free exercise of religion. He asserted that the government must be cautious in imposing burdens on religious practices, particularly when those practices do not harm others.
Harlan’s Dissent- Harlan dissented, expressing concern about the implications of the Court’s decision for state interests and the potential for judicial overreach. He argued that the government had a legitimate interest in regulating unemployment benefits, which could be compromised by allowing religious exemptions. Harlan emphasized the need for a balance between individual rights and the government’s regulatory powers. He warned that the ruling could set a precedent that would invite numerous claims for exemptions from various state laws based on religious beliefs, potentially leading to complications in the application of public policy.
Employment Division v. Smith
Parties involved: Employment Division- state agency responsible for administering unemployment benefits in Oregon. Denied claimants based on their use of Peyote.
Alfred Smith and Galen Black- Native American claimants who worked as drug counselors for the company. They battled alcoholism
Facts: Involved two Native American men who were fired for using peyote.After being denied unemployment benefits by the Oregon Employment Division, they challenged the state’s decision, arguing that the denial violated their right to free exercise of religion. 6-3 decision that the state could deny it even for religious use. They used peyote to contact the Peyote spirit and was the only way to communicate
Legal Questions: should ingesting illegal drugs during a religious practice be protected by the Free Exercise clause? Should the court take precedence from Sherbert and give them unemployment benefits? Applying the Sherbert Test, does burdening Smith’s free exercise of religion by not providing unemployment benefits serve a “compelling state interest”?
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority Opinion- Scalia says that using a balancing test like Sherbert creates a private right to ignore neutral, generally applicable laws. This would open the “constitutional floodgates.” The clause does not relieve an individual from complying with a pre-existing law. Held that Free Exercise Clause permits the state to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.
O’Connors Concurrence- The First Amendment does not distinguish between laws that are “generally applicable” and laws that are not. If there are hard cases, it is our job to resolve them. Argued that their “central thrust” was incorrect and that all laws burdening religious practices should be subject to compelling state interest. Don’t view the practice as an “anomaly” just because they’re a minor religion.She concurs because she thinks Oregon has a compelling state interest in regulating controlled substances.
Blackmun’s Dissent- They were never jailed for violating drug laws. How can an unenforced law be a compelling state interest? There was no evidence presented that peyote is harmful, and the federal government has an exception for the sacramental use of peyote. There is no slippery slope. There is a balancing test. That means that the Court will not always accommodate religion. Argues the law didn’t pass the scrutiny test because peyote was not a part of the US’s drug abuse problem. Says that the majority views state laws that interfere with freedom of religion as a topic of “luxury” and repression of minority religions is an “unavoidable consequence of democracy”
US v. Lee
Parties involved: David Lee, a member of the Amish community, who challenged the application of Social Security tax laws to him as a religious objection.
United States of America, represented by federal officials enforcing the Social Security Act.
Facts: David Lee was an Amish farmer who, due to his religious beliefs, refused to pay Social Security taxes. He argued that participating in the Social Security system was contrary to his religious convictions. The IRS assessed a penalty against Lee for failing to pay these taxes, and Lee contested this action in court, claiming it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The district court ruled in favor of Lee, citing his religious beliefs. However, the government appealed, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Legal Questions: Does the enforcement of Social Security taxes against Lee violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion? Is there a constitutional exemption for religious groups from paying Social Security taxes?
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority Opinion- Justice William H. Rehnquist- The majority recognized the government’s compelling interest in maintaining the Social Security system, which they deemed necessary for the overall welfare of society. The Court applied a balancing test between religious freedom and governmental interests. They found that while Lee’s religious beliefs were significant, the interest in a stable Social Security system was more compelling. The majority distinguished this case from others where religious rights had been upheld, emphasizing that the tax system applies equally to all citizens and does not target religious practices.
Blackmun’s Dissent- expressed concern that the majority opinion undermined the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom. They argued that Lee’s sincere religious beliefs should be given greater weight against the governmental interest. The dissent emphasized the potential for the ruling to set a precedent that could disadvantage minority religions and diminish their rights.
Boerne v. Flores
Parties involved: City of Boerne, Texas, which denied a church’s request to expand its facilities in a historic district.
Archbishop Patrick Flores, representing the Catholic Church, which argued that the denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Facts: The Archbishop sought to expand a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas. The city denied the permit, citing local historic preservation laws. The church claimed that the denial violated the RFRA, which aimed to protect individuals’ religious freedoms from government interference. RFRA was enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which had limited protections for religious practices. A federal district court ruled in favor of the church, stating that the RFRA provided a basis for the church to challenge the city’s decision. However, the city appealed, leading to the case being heard by the Supreme Court. the City of Boerne won in the Supreme Court decision in Boerne v. Flores (1997). The Court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was unconstitutional as it applied to state and local governments. This decision upheld Boerne’s denial of the church’s expansion request, emphasizing that the federal government could not impose RFRA’s requirements on state laws.
Legal Questions: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceed Congress’s powers under the Constitution? Is RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states?
Main points of the Opinions:
Majority Opinions- Justice kennedy, The majority ruled that RFRA, as applied to the states, exceeded Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that Congress could not dictate how states regulate religious practices. The decision emphasized principles of federalism, asserting that states have the right to manage their own laws and regulations, including those that affect religious practices. The majority viewed RFRA as an inappropriate legislative response to the earlier Smith decision, suggesting that the judicial system had already addressed religious freedom adequately.
Justice John Paul Stevens Dissent- argued that RFRA was a legitimate attempt by Congress to restore protections for religious practices that had been weakened by the Smith decision. They contended that the law aimed to protect minority religions from government interference. The dissent emphasized the importance of safeguarding religious freedoms, arguing that the ruling could limit protections for individuals against state laws that might infringe upon their beliefs.
