Freedom of Religion Flashcards
Sherbert v. Verner
Appellant was a member of the Seventh Day Adventists and was discharged from her job because she could not work on Saturdays. She filed for unemployment and was disqualified from benefits because she failed without good cause to accept employment when offered to her.
Issue: Whether a State can deny unemployment benefits to an applicant who refuses to accept employment offers because a condition of employment violates appellant’s religious beliefs.
STRICT
The government cannot discriminate against a group because they hold certain religious beliefs.
If the purpose or effect of a law is to impede observation of the religion the law is invalid even if the burden is only incidental.
Employment Division v. Smith)
Oregon state law prohibits knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance unless medically prescribed.
defendants took peyote for sacramental purposes at a Native American service. They were fired for taking the substance and could not get unemployment benefits.
Issue: Whether the Free Exercise Clause permits Oregon to criminalize religious practices that violate generally applicable laws.
One’s rights to act on beliefs is not protected. An individual’s religious beliefs have never been held to excuse someone from compliance with a valid and neutral law regulating something a state can regulate.
NO STRICT SCRUTINY
rational basis?
the Court held that combating a national drug problem was a legitimate governmental interest and that the law was neutrally applied to all citizens of Oregon
Church v. City of Hialeah)
The Church required animal sacrifices as part of their religious practices. When the Church announced they were going to build in the city, several ordinances were passed to prevent the Church from sacrificing animals.
Whether the ordinances violate the Free Exercise Clause
The ordinance here is not neutral or generally applicable because they use words like sacrifice or ritual to describe the prohibited conduct.
The ordinances seek to repress a central area of their worship and prevent them from practicing. The ordinance fails because it is not narrowly tailored to accomplish their interests and the interests are not compelling.
STRICT
(Burwell v. Hobby Lobby)
Plaintiff owners of closely held corporations with sincere religious beliefs about contraception sued arguing that regulations requiring them to provide health insurance coverage for certain contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),
Did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) allow for-profit companies to deny their employee’s health insurance coverage for contraception where that violated the religious beliefs of the company owners?
regulations greatly burdened the exercise of religion as its compliance was against the owners’ religious objections to abortion.
The Court assumes here that the Dept’s interest are compelling. They are not the least restrictive means as there were other methods to ensure that every woman had cost-free access to certain contraceptive
STRICT
(Lemon v. Kurtzman)
Pennsylvania adopted a program that provides support to nonpublic elementary schools by reimbursing salaries, textbooks, and instructional material on secular subjects.
Rhode Island passed a law that pays teachers in nonpublic schools a supplement of 15%.
Issue: Whether these state laws violate the Establishment Clause
It violates the Establishment Clause
The statute was clearly passed to enhance the secular education quality at these nonpublic schools.
demonstrates excessive entanglement that does not satisfy the third prong.
To determine whether entanglement is excessive, look to character and purpose of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid the State provides, and the resulting relation between the government and religious authority.
but statutes required continuing government involvement.
The Rhode Island statute demonstrates excessive entanglement because the schools are close to the churches. Second, the Pennsylvania schools are giving state aid directly to the nonpublic schools. State supervision is also necessary to ensure that the schools are using the money for the secular programs.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU)
ACLU challenged two state holiday displays. The first is a navity scene placed on the grand staircase of the courthouse. The other display is a Chanukah menorah that is placed outside the city building. The Chanukah is also placed beside a Christmas tree and sign that salutes liberty.
Issue: Whether states may publicly display religious depictions without violating the Establishment Clause
The creche is unconstitutional but the Chanukah is not unconstitutional in light of its placement. To determine whether the displays have the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, the court must examine whether the challenged government action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the religion as endorsement of their religious beliefs.
The creche contains no other symbol to detract from the blatantly religious message. Without more, this can easily be construed as an endorsement of the religion.
The Chanukah does have other symbols to prevent it looking like endorsement of that particular religion.
(Van Orden v. Perry)
The Fraternal Order of Eagles of Texas gifted the State Capitol a monolith of the Ten Commandments. The monolith included an eagle holding an American flag, an eye in a pyramid, a Star of David, and Greek lettering.
Issue: Whether the Establishment Clause allows displays of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Texas State Capitol grounds.
Lemon is inapplicable here.
large park with 17 other monuments – not on the courthouse steps or in a school
The proper analysis is by looking at the history of the United States and the nature of the monument. The nation’s history is deeply rooted in religion and the Ten Commandments are widely recognized in both American like and courtrooms. The Ten Commandments are regarded for symbolism in both the religious and legal context.
McCreary v. ACLU
McCreary and Pulaski County posted the Ten Commandments on the courthouse walls. The county then expanded the displays and issued resolutions stating that the Ten Commandments were their precedent legal code. Then the text was surrounded by historical, non-religious documents.
Issue: Whether a determination of a county’s purpose is a sound basis for ruling on the Establishment Clause complaints and whether the evaluation of a secular purpose for the ultimate display may take evolution into account
The development of the display over time should be examined when looking at the purpose of the display.
Under Lemon test first prong: must have secular purpose - it failed
Rule: establishment clause requires government neutrality on religious issues
the 10th Commandments are religious, BUT it can be displayed in a secular way. Must also look at government’s purpose.
Here, the govt. didn’t show primarily secular purpose for the display. display focused on religion. To an objective observer, it would look like govt. is promoting religous views.
American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n)
American Legion provided a 32-foot cross that bears the names of fallen soldiers and possesses the American Legion symbol.
Issue: Whether a presumption of constitutionality applies under the Establishment Clause to longstanding memorials with historically secular purposes and traditions, even if such memorials are uses a religious symbol on public land.
the passage of time creates a strong presumption that the monument is constitutional.
(Zorach v. Clauson)
NYC schools permitted religious students to be released during the school day to attend religious or devotional exercises. Parents would give written permission and those not released under those religious programs were prohibited from leaving school. The school sent weekly reports about the children who attended the religious programs. All costs were paid by religious programs and none by the school.
Issue: Whether the program violated the Establishment Clause
There is no coercion to attend religious activities. Attendance is voluntary and does not implicate the Establishment Clause.
(Wallace v. Jeffree)
Appellee Jeffree filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction restraining defendants from maintaining and allowing regular prayer services in the Public Schools.
Issue: Whether a state statute authorizing a period of silence for meditation and voluntary prayer is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Court uses the Lemon test here and specifically focuses on the inquiry about a secular purpose. If the statute is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion, it must be invalidated. However, a statute even partly motivated by religion can satisfy this first inquiry.
The State enacted this statute for the sole purpose of endorsing prayer. Therefore, it fails the Lemon test.
(Lee v. Weisman)
School principals were inviting clergy to offer invocation and prayers as part of a formal graduation ceremony. Even if the students objected to the prayer, their attendance was not obligatory, and the school did not require attendance to receive a diploma.
Issue: Whether inviting clergy to graduation to offer prayer violates the First Amendment.
coercion test
the government cannot coerce someone to support or participate in religious exercise or act in a way that establishes religion.
The prayer violates these principles because the actions of the principal are attributable to the state.
The school places indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it.
Although attendance is voluntary, the choice to simply not attend is not a real choice
Kennedy v. Bremerton
Kennedy was a football coach. Kennedy kneeled and said a prayer on the field after games. Over time, some players voluntarily joined him. the district forbade Kennedy from engaging in any overt acts that would appear to endorse prayer while on duty. In three subsequent games, Kennedy prayed, once bowing his head and twice kneeling. After the season, the district placed Kennedy on forced leave
STRICT
A policy is not neutral if it specifically targets a religious practice, and it is not generally applicable if it forbids religious conduct while allowing other conduct that poses the same threat to the asserted government interest.
the policy must satisfy strict scrutiny. It does not meet that burden because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the asserted interest of preventing a government endorsement of religion.
The majority opinion from the Supreme Court found that the Establishment Clause does not allow a government body to take a hostile view of religion in considering personal rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, ruling that the board acted improperly in not renewing Kennedy’s contract.
Two elements:
1.The construction of the facts
He was praying by himself
He didn’t require anyone to join him
Not coercive
- History and tradition in the US
No uncommon to see ppl praying in games
(Mueller v. Allen)
Minnesota law permitted tax deductions from gross income for expenses incurred for tuition, textbooks, and transportation costs for elementary students in both public and nonpublic schools. Almost all of the nonpublic schools were religious schools.
Issue: Whether generally applicable tax deductions for both public and nonpublic schools violates the Establishment Clause.
The Lemon test is applied here.
There is a secular purpose because the purpose is to defray the cost of education.
There is also no purpose to advance or inhibit religion because the deductions do not assist religious schools.
The funds are just provided to parents who then make the decision about attending a nonpublic school. It is also a facially neutral law.
There is also no excessive entanglement.
Zelman v.. Simmons-Harris
As part of a plan to improve education the “Program” provided financial aid to students to be able to attend a private school or another school of the student’s parent’s choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools were part of the program, as were urban and suburban schools. The financial aid was granted on the basis of need and parents were given sole authority to decide which schools to select. In the 1999-2000 school year, eighty-two percent of the private schools that were in the program had a religious affiliation.
The school district also offered two other educational alternatives: students could attend community schools that receive double the per-student funding or a magnet school that offered the students the ability to emphasize certain subject areas.
In deciding whether an unintended side effect of a law has been the advancement or inhibition of religion, courts have previously distinguished between programs that provide funds directly to religious institutions and those in which government funds reach them as the result of the independent choices of individuals. This is a program of true choice. Participants in the Program are not chosen by race, religion, or any other designation. All residents in thedistrict are equally able to participate. The only preference in the program is for low-income families to receive a greater amount of financial assistance and receive priority for admissions. There are no financial incentives that encourage students to attend religion backed schools.
“The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.”
