Religion

Question 1

Torcaso v Watkins

Answer 1

MD prohibits state from denying public position to someone based on religious beliefs with exception that state may require him to affirmatively state belief in existence of God. P applied for notary public which required him to state he believed in God but refused.

HELD: 1A violation free exercise
state cannot use religious test as qualification for public position
1A bars gov from forcing a person to profess belief or disbelief in God and religion.

General Rule: Discrimination based on the absence of religiosity or the absence of belief in a deity is presumptively unconstitutional

Question 2

McDaniel v Paty

Answer 2

law prohibits ordained ministers from serving as legislators, including delegates to state’s constitutional convention

HELD: violation of 1A free exercise
discriminates based on his status as minister of church
-statute can’t condition the exercise of one right (right to preach as exercise of religion) on the surrender of another (right to seek pub. office).
-cannot facially discriminate against religiously motivated conduct unless passes SS

Question 3

Church of Lukumi v City of Hialeah

Answer 3

church practiced religion requiring animal sacrifice where they are eventually eaten. FL adopted ordinance prohibiting ritualistic animal sacrifices

HELD: 1A violation free exercise

• had objective of suppressing religious tenets
• city says purpose is stopping animal cruelty but under inc b/c only prohibits slaughtering of animals for ritualistic/sacrificial purposes
• fails SS

Question 4

United States v Ballard

Answer 4

Ballards convicted for using & conspiring to use mails to defraud through scheme that solicited funds & membership to mvmt by making false claims about supernatural abilities to heal diseases

HELD: 1A prohibits inquiring into truth or reasonableness of religious beliefs

• judiciary cannot inquire into that
• jury can only be instructed to determine if Ds were sincere in their beliefs

Question 5

Presbyterian Church in US v Mary Elizabeth Blue Hill

Answer 5

property dispute happened, 2 local churches withdrew from national. National demanded their property be returned, local churches filed lawsuit arguing there was implied trust that property be used for the benefit of the national church only on the condition the national church did not violate practices of religion

HELD: state cannot determine whether a church has violated religious doctrine

• Gov officials may not decide whether beliefs are consistent w/ the teachings of a particular religion, or interpret religious doctrine in other ways.
• but courts can apply neutral principles of law to church property dispute and narrowly review church decisions for fraud/collusion/arbitrariness

Question 6

Thomas v Review Bd

Answer 6

P was Jehovas witness who worked for machine company and was transferred to new dept, quit claiming he could not produce war materials bc religious belief. Denied unemployment

HELD: state cannot deny unemployment to person who leaves based on religion

-religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible for others to achieve 1A protection

Question 7

Lee v Weisman

Answer 7

public MS principal invited Jewish rabbi to pray at school grad ceremony

HELD: as gov coercion to participate in religious activities [violates 1Aestablishment]

• not attending grad is not a real choice available, as it is a momentous occasion
• puts public/peer pressure on attending students
• Even psychological/social pressure (at least pressure to attend a graduation ceremony (valuable benefit) and stand and remain silent while prayer takes place) is sufficient.
• “[S]tanding/remaining silent” during a graduation prayer = “an expression of participation in the … prayer

Question 8

Town of Greece v Galloway

Answer 8

Town opens monthly board meetings with a prayer given by the local clergyman, any minister or layperson could give the prayer but each of them were given by a Christian minister from 1999-2007.

HELD: constitutional
distinguish from Lee: public free to come/go or leave briefly during prayer, to pray or not pray, brd members never singled anyone out for their choice

–not inconsistent with the prayers traditionally permitted at government gatherings under the first amendment, & town offered the opportunity to give prayers to all faiths–

Question 9

Sherbert v Vernor

Answer 9

[constitutionally mandated exemption for Sabbath]

employee fired for refusal to work on sabbath, denied unemployment.
Religion neutral rule: can’t get unemployment if “available for work” and don’t reject “without good cause” possible work

HELD: violates 1A free exercise. fails SS

• -individualized exemption b/c state can exempt from statute if you didn’t have “Good cause.”
• -burden is to forfeit benefits or violate religious obligation
• -gov interest in preventing fake claims but no evidence
• -forcing religious to make a choice between following religion or foregoing benefits OR violating religion in order to work is impermissible burden

Question 10

Wisconsin v Yoder

Answer 10

[constitutionally mandated exemption for compulsory education]

rule-children must go to school until 16, Amish did not want to send children
burden: go to jail or violate religious obligation

HELD: violation of 1A free exercise, fails SS
gov interest in training children to participate in political life and be self-sufficient, but no evidence that 1-2 extra school years will make a big diff to Amish
gov interest in protecting child’s rights to education, and choose btw Amish lifestyle & others – but parental rights secure parental choice
–law places too great a burden on rights of Amish as to the religious & educational upbringing of their children

Question 11

Employment Division v Smith

Answer 11

[NO statutory exemption for generally applicable neutral laws]

Ps fired after ingesting peyote for sacramental purposes but determined ineligible for unemployment bc discharged for work-related misconduct

HELD: 1A does not bar gov from enforcing generally applicable laws that are not targeting religion but may have ‘incidental effect’ on exercise of religion
–“it is not the role of the courts to create such legislative exceptions [for religious conduct]”

Question 12

Reynolds v US

Answer 12

[NO statutory exemption]

D married 2nd wife and charged with bigamy

HELD: law criminalization bigamy does not violate 1A free exercise

Question 13

Holt v Hobbs

Answer 13

[RLUIPA exception for beards on Muslims in prison]

o Burden on rel. exercise by prohibiting ½ inch beards is substantial
o State interests preventing contraband and allowing for easy ID of prisoners are compelling
o Means are not least restrictive: beards can be searched; prisoners can be photographed with and w/o beard;
o Means underinclusive: mustache and hair longer than ½ inch are allowed, exceptions for beards are made for medical reasons.

Question 14

Gonzalez v OCentro

Answer 14

[RFRA exemption for sacramental use of controlled substance]

HELD: denial failed SS

• -controlled substance act provides for waiver when use is consistent with public safety and health
• -exception for religious use of peyote had been made[equally dangerous substance]
• no evidence that exception for rel use undercuts gov ability to ban other uses
• no evidence of intl consequences showing how the interest of complying w treaty is advanced by denial

Question 15

Burwell v Hobby Lobby

Answer 15

[RFRA exemption to close corp]

• -Granted exemption to closely-held corp. from HHS regulations mandating they provide insurance w/ contraceptive coverage b/c owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened (they believed providing 4 contraceptive methods would mean they’d facilitate abortions, or if they didn’t comply they’d have to pay $475 million per year),
• -govt. failed to show denial of the exemption serves compelling interests (govt.’s interests to promote pub. health and gender equality are broadly framed and riddled w/ exceptions),
• -even if interests were compelling, the mandate isn’t least restrictive means of serving the interests b/c HHS could itself provide the employees w/ the contraceptive coverage (as it does for employees of religious nonprofits).

Question 16

US v Lee

Answer 16

[no exemption from social security taxes]

HELD: Rejected giving exemption to Amish from social security taxes

• • “tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system b/c tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.” (allowing exemptions would undermine whole program)
• -Congress chose to exempt self-employed Amish but not Amish employers.

Question 17

Bob Jones Univ v US

Answer 17

[NO exemption from]..
IRS rule required private schools to not discriminate based on race in order to qualify for charitable tax exempt status

–govt.’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination from education by denying tax exemption to racially discriminatory educational institutions overrides any burden on P’s exercise of religious beliefs.

Question 18

Welsh v United States

Answer 18

Welsh opposed to participating in war, applied for conscientious-objector exemption but refused to sign required statement that he was opposed due to religious beliefs.

HELD: [qualifies for conscientious objector exemption]
his deeply and sincerely held beliefs though purely ethical/moral beliefs, took a place parallel to that filled by God in traditional religions

Question 19

Estate of Thornton v Caldor

Answer 19

[mandatory Sabbath accommodation law struck down] Thornton refused to work Sundays bc sabbath and was demoted

HELD: struck down statute as violation of 1A
-statute didn’t exempt employer that need employees for certain days + discriminated against secular workers w/ comparable obligations

*Permissible accommodation must be reasonable and not impose undue hardship.
This imposed too high burden on employers and employees

Question 20

Hobbie v Unemployment Appeals Comm’n

Answer 20

employee dismissed for refusing to work Sabbath; denied unemployment benefits
law mandates unemployment benefits to persons discharged bc religious practices incompatible with work

HELD: violation of 1A to deny unemployment
distinguish Thornton (only applied to religions with sabbath) but this law is religion-neutral & applies to all religions.

Question 21

Texas Monthly Inc v Bullock

Answer 21

TX sales tax exemption for religious publications struck down

• -no secular legislative purpose to provide tax exemption towards religious writings [purpose is to subsidize religous teachings]
• -this is state sponsorship in violation of establishment clause

Question 22

City of Boerne v Flores

Answer 22

Steven’s concurrence:

RFRA violates 1A establishment clause bc it gives special preference for religious owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law that an atheist or agnostic cannot obtain

Question 23

Cutter v WIlkinson

Answer 23

RLUIPA challenge, in connection w/ denial of accommodation to Satanists and adherents of other non-mainstream religions in prison

–Upheld RLUIPA which prohibited substantial burdens on institutionalized persons’ religious exercise absent narrowly tailored compelling interests b/c it alleviated exceptional govt.-created burdens on private religious exercise.

RULE:
• Now, non-constitutionally mandated religion only exemptions are permissible if they:
o (i) alleviate exceptional gov-created burdens on private religious exercise
o (ii) require courts to take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries
o (iii) are administered neutrally among different faiths

Question 24

TWA v Hardison

Answer 24

TWA [private employer, subject to CRA] refused to accommodate P’s request not to be scheduled to work during Sabbath and fired him when he refused to report for work during those shifts

HELD: accommodating his request would have created an undue burden for TWA

• -Based on their seniority system under union contract, they would have had to require a more senior employee to take Ps shift or allow P to work fewer shifts
• -would also mean TWA exercises “unequal treatment” in favor of Hardison’s religious beliefs.

Question 25

Everson v Bd of Ed

Answer 25

Program where board of ed. would pay for bus fare for students, available for anyone going to any school. But practically much more useful for private school kids, & most private schools were religious.

HELD: this funding OK because it provides benefits to everybody (even though prevalent to rel schools)

Question 26

Rosenberg v Rector

Answer 26

UVA authorizes payment to outside contractors for printing costs for student publications, P was denied when asked for funds to subsidize a publication about A Christian Perspective for the sole reason his paper promoted a particular religious belief.

HELD: 1A free speech violation

• -any benefit to religion is incidental to gov secular purpose
• -when state creates LPF, cannot discriminate based on viewpoint unless it has limited purpose in doing so.
• -UV creates LPF with policy of funding for student publications and cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination
• -it is not establishment clause violation to fund religious newspapers

Question 27

Mitchell v Helms

Answer 27

gov programs provide federal funds for school supplies to public schools and private schools (but only if they demonstrate it will be used for secular, neutral programs). In Louisiana, 30% funds go to private schools and most of them are religiously affiliated.

HELD: policy is neutral

• -aid is available to religious and non
• -gov removed from the process bc aid rests on independent private teachers and parents
• -funding can be given to religious school as long as it goes to non-religious teaching aspect (like math)
• -Concurrence (O’Connor/Breyer): Direct aid to religious org is constitutional so long as no actual diversion of funds to religious indoctrination.

Question 28

Zelman v Simmons-Harris

Answer 28

Ohio program provides tuition aid for students K-3rd to attend a participating private or public school of parents choosing. 82% of participating private schools were religiously affiliated, none of the public schools elected to participate.

HELD: program constitutional

• -had valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in failing public system.
• -when neutral gov aid flows to religious institutions b/c of a private independent choice (such as students use of $ at schools) -> no establishment clause violation

Question 29

Locke v Davey

Answer 29

WA program gives scholarship to academically gifted students but cannot use scholarship to pursue degree in devotional theology

HELD: no 1A violation of free exercise [no SS, maybe categorical limitation?]

• -it’s a restriction on use of benefit (not criminal prohibition of conduct like Lukumi)
• -not a limit on political rights (like McDaniel)
• -doesn’t require students to choose between rel beliefs & gov benefit (they can use scholarship to pursue secular degree at different institution, get theology degree at another)
• -allows use of funds at religious institutions
• overall pattern of WA program is not anti-religious
• -WA history of opposition of funding to ministry

Question 30

Trinity Lutheran Church v Comer

Answer 30

Program gives grant $ to schools, daycares, nonprofits to resurface playgrounds but disqualifies religious orgs

HELD: unconstitutional to exclude church from grants — violates 1A free exercise
distinguish Locke:
Davey denied scholarship b/c of what he proposed to do with it (not bc of who he was)
–>Trinity denied because of what it is [church]
Davey could still pursue religious & secular degree
–>Trinity effectively forced to choose btw public benefit or being a church
Davey involved funding for an essentially religious endeavor as well as an academic pursuit
–>Trinity involves playground safety which is important for kids, allocation of $ isn’t necessarily for religious practices
–>Trinity has no such history of excluding funding to ministry

Question 31

Espinoza v Montana Dep of Rev

Answer 31

K-12 school voucher program

HELD: violation of 1A free exercise to exclude religious schools from voucher program

• cannot deny public benefits solely bc of religious character
• -distinguish Locke v Davey (chose not to fund a distinct category of minister training + historical state interest)
• -here, does not focus on essentially religious course, just bars all aid to religious schools
• -forces religious schools to choose btw benefits or being religious, or parents forced to choose btw sending children to religious schools or getting benefits

Question 32

American Legion v American Humanist Assn

Answer 32

after WWI, military used cross symbolically as military honors. The army marked solider’s grave with crosses, war memorial erected with a cross at highway.

HELD: not violation of 1A establishment

• -cross had special significance in WWI commemoratives, so it took on a secular meaning in memorials
• -acquired historical significance
• -doesn’t deliberately disrespect religious minorities

Question 33

Engel v Vitale

Answer 33

Head of brd of ed directed that a prayer be spoken out loud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day

HELD: violation of 1A establishment
–prayer is religious activity

Question 34

City of Boerne v Flores

Answer 34

o Steven’s concurrence: RFRA violates 1A establishment clause bc it gives special preference for religious owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law that an atheist or agnostic cannot obtain

Question 35

Roman Catholic v Cuomo & Tandon v Newsom

Answer 35

if law treats religious activity more dis-favorably than it would comparable secular activity –> apply SS
one of the exceptions to Smith

treating churches worse (tighter covid restrictions) than shopping centers/schools/factories

Tandon clarifies when you are comparing religious vs secular activity -> you compare it based on the gov interest

HELD: did not pass SS

Question 36

Fulton v City of Philadelphia

Answer 36

City of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because of its policy of not licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents

HELD: violates free exercise & FAILS SS

• -law not neutral and generally applicable because it allowed for exceptions to the anti-discrimination requirement at the sole discretion of the Commissioner.
• -Interest: Maximizing number of foster parents & protecting city from liability.
• -But “City fails to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals at risk.”

–Court pointed out that the question is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS.

Question 37

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v Amos

Answer 37

CRA prohibits religious discrimination in employment but exempts religious orgs

HELD: upheld exemption, not violation of establishment

• -rationally relate to legitimate purpose of limiting gov interference with regards to the ability of religious orgs to define/carry out their religious mission
• -law’s primary effect is that religious orgs advance religion, not government