Establishment Clause

Question 1

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 1

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Direct funding for teacher’s salaries and instructional materials is invalid due to excessive entanglement. Lemon Test: 1) Secular Legislative Purpose, 2) Primary Effect Neither Advances Nor Inhibits Religion, 3) No Excessive Entanglement.

Question 2

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Answer 2

Establishment Clause, School Aid, School board reimbursed parents for cost of busing kids to school regardless of public or private. No Establishment Clause violation because general government service for all students and refusing religious students could interfere with free exercise. Smith in reverse.

Question 3

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Answer 3

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Government cannot allow religious groups to teach religion as part of the school day at a public school. Compulsory public school scheme was invaluable aid to religious groups. Illegally used power of state to support religion.

Question 4

Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

Answer 4

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Upheld policy allowing release of students for off-campus religious classes. Not required to attend, no religion in public classrooms, and no use of public funds.

Question 5

Mueller v. Allen (1983)

Answer 5

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Lemon Test, Upheld tax deductions for school expenses included religious students. No direct support from state to schools and tax law was generally applicable.

Question 6

Agostini v. Felton (1997)

Answer 6

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Secular education by public school employees on private school premises upheld because goal to help disadvantaged on a neutral basis.

Question 7

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Answer 7

Establishment Clause, School Aid, Lemon Test, Upheld Voucher Scheme, Program allowed true private choice even though most choices were religious schools. Program was neutral with respect to religion and helped broad class of citizens. Breyer Dissent: Antidiscrimination requirement necessitates excessive entanglement.

Question 8

Locke v. Davey (2004)

Answer 8

Establishment Clause, School Aid/Accommodation, Ceiling and Floor, Upheld ban on use of public scholarships for theology degrees. State action can be permissible under the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause (gray area). Interest in not funding devotional degrees is substantial with no evidence of religious animous and burden on students is minor.

Question 9

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

Answer 9

Establishment Clause, School Aid, State grants for playgrounds cannot be denied to church because of what it is (unlike Locke v. Davey where denial was for how the funds were used). Agency’s policy was expressly discriminatory against religious groups and imposed a penalty on free exercise.

Question 10

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 10

Establishment Clause, Endorsement, School prayer initiated by school officials is unconstitutional and is indirect coercion on religious minorities (even with option to remain silent).

Question 11

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Answer 11

Establishment Clause, Endorsement, Lemon Test, Struck down law allowing schools to provide one minute for meditation or voluntary prayer. Failed first prong of Lemon Test because motivated by a purpose to advance religion.

Question 12

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Answer 12

Establishment Clause, Endorsement, Prayer at graduation ceremony was coercive and unconstitutional. Concern for children’s freedom of conscience from subtle, indirect coercion (peer pressure). O’Connor Concurrence: Coercion is sufficient but not necessary because any endorsement/sponsorship/active involvement in religion violates Establishment Clause. Scalia Dissent: Establishment Clause should be construed in light of history of policies of accommodation, acknowledgement, and support for religion.

Question 13

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

Answer 13

Establishment Clause, Endorsement, Upheld legislative prayer because of history and tradition. Did not apply Lemon Test.

Question 14

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

Answer 14

Establishment Clause, Endorsement, Upheld volunteer-led prayer at town meetings under historical practice rationale and as acknowledgment of religion in society not bias against religious minorities. Distinct from Lee v. Weisman because adult freedom of conscience less vulnerable than children.

Question 15

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Answer 15

Establishment Clause, Symbols, Lemon Test, Endorsement Test, Upheld creche display that included secular elements. Secular purpose to depict historical origins of national holiday, not to advocate religious message. Advancement of religion was indirect or incidental. O’Connor Concurrence: Endorsement Test to determine actual purpose and actual effect of state action.

Question 16

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (2005)

Answer 16

Establishment Clause, Symbols, Ten Commandments in courthouse had clear sectarian purpose, even when combined with other things. Government must integrate religious and secular purpose and treat the two themes neutrally.

Question 17

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Answer 17

Establishment Clause, Symbols, Upheld Ten Commandments statue as historic and social meaning and not endorsement. Religious undertones are only minor. Did not apply Lemon Test.

Question 18

Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum (2009)

Answer 18

Establishment Clause, Symbols, Government Speech, Government refuses to accept donated statue. Permanent monument in public park is government speech and not subject to strict scrutiny.

Question 19

Widmar v. Vincent (1981)

Answer 19

Establishment Clause, Ceiling and Floor, Government cannot deny equal access to public facilities to religious groups. Applied strict scrutiny usually given to content-based exclusions from public forums.

Question 20

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985)

Answer 20

Establishment Clause, Ceiling and Floor, Law providing absolute right not to work on chosen sabbath day advocates a particular religious practice. O’Connor Concurrence: Title VII provides reasonable (not absolute) accomodations. This can be accomplished through antidiscrimination law instead of law endorsing particular religion.

Question 21

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos (1987)

Answer 21

Establishment Clause, Accommodation, Ceiling and Floor, Lemon Test, Upheld Title VII exemption for religious groups from anti-discrimination rules in hiring. Compare Locke v. Davey: Allowed under Establishment Clause, but not required by Free Exercise Clause. There the state chose not to grant accommodation, but here they did choose to grant the accommodation.

Question 22

Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc. (1982)

Answer 22

Establishment Clause, Ceiling and Floor, Lemon Test, Liquor license denied if nearby churches objected. Despite secular purpose, goal can be accomplished without giving authority to churches. Church could use authority to unfairly benefit religion. Impermissibly entangles churches in the governing process.

Question 23

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994)

Answer 23

Establishment Clause, Ceiling and Floor, Accommodation, Struck down creation of a special school district for special needs children of orthodox Jews. No special treatment for singled-out religious groups.

Question 24

American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)

Answer 24

Establishment Clause, Ceiling and Floor, Lemon Test not appropriate for longstanding memorials. Original purpose hard to determine, purpose and message changes over time, and removal may not be seen as neutral (keeping is different than adding new monument, First Amendment values of tolerance and respect). Passage of time creates strong presumption of constitutionality.