UGS Final Key Terms

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) - Wall of Separation

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was a Supreme Court case that addressed the relationship between government and religion, introducing the influential concept of the "wall of separation" between church and state. The case involved a New Jersey law that reimbursed parents for transportation costs to both public and private (including religious) schools. Although the Court upheld the reimbursement policy, it used the decision to emphasize that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause—applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment—prohibits government from aiding or favoring religion. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion famously declared that the Constitution erects a "wall of separation between church and state," which must be kept "high and impregnable." This case marked the first time the Establishment Clause was directly applied to state laws and set the stage for decades of litigation

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) - Lemon Test

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the Lemon Test, a three-part standard used to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The case dealt with state laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that provided public funding to private religious schools for teacher salaries and instructional materials. The Court struck down the laws, ruling that such financial support created an impermissible entanglement between church and state. The resulting Lemon Test requires that any government action related to religion (1) must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. This test became a central tool in evaluating Establishment Clause cases for decades, shaping how courts balance religious freedom with government neutrality.

Approach to Religious Liberty in Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) marked a significant shift in the Supreme Court's approach to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case involved two Native American men who were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug used in religious ceremonies, and were subsequently denied unemployment benefits by the state of Oregon. The Court ruled that the state's denial did not violate their religious freedom because the law banning peyote was a neutral, generally applicable law not targeted at any specific religious practice. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia concluded that individuals must comply with valid laws even if those laws incidentally burden religious practices. This decision significantly narrowed protections for religious liberty by abandoning the requirement that the government must demonstrate a compelling interest when burdening religious exercise, as had been applied in previous cases. The ruling sparked criticism and led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) to restore stricter scrutiny in some contexts.

Civil Rights Cases (1883) - State Action

The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were a group of five cases consolidated by the Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations such as inns, theaters, and public transportation. The Court struck down the Act, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment only restricts state action, not the actions of private individuals or businesses. This ruling established the state action doctrine, which limits the scope of constitutional protections to acts carried out by governments, not private entities. As a result, the decision severely weakened federal efforts to combat racial discrimination during the Reconstruction era and permitted widespread segregation and exclusion by private actors. The state action doctrine remains a fundamental principle in constitutional law, often determining whether a rights violation can be challenged under the Constitution.

Approach to Religious Liberty in Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 was enacted by Congress in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which had significantly limited protections under the Free Exercise Clause. RFRA aimed to restore a higher level of scrutiny for government actions that burden religious exercise. Under RFRA, the government may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. This effectively reinstated the strict scrutiny standard that had applied in earlier Free Exercise cases. While the Supreme Court later ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that RFRA could not be applied to state governments, it remains in effect at the federal level and continues to shape how courts evaluate religious liberty claims against federal laws and policies.

Civil Rights Act (1964) - Commerce Clause

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations, employment, and other areas of public life. A key constitutional foundation for the Act—particularly Title II, which banned discrimination in hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities—was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Congress justified the law by arguing that racial discrimination in public businesses had a significant effect on interstate commerce. This approach was upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), which confirmed that Congress had the authority to regulate private businesses engaged in commerce in order to enforce civil rights protections. The use of the Commerce Clause was crucial in overcoming earlier legal barriers that limited federal power to address private acts of discrimination.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) - Commerce Clause

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) was a pivotal Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title II, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations. The case arose when the owner of the motel challenged the law, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by regulating a private business. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument, ruling that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate businesses that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court emphasized that the motel served out-of-state travelers and was located near major highways, thus directly impacting interstate movement. This decision affirmed that Congress could use its commerce power to address racial discrimination in the private sector, significantly expanding the federal government's ability to enforce civil rights protections.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Separate but Equal

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws under the doctrine of "separate but equal." Homer Plessy, an African American man, was arrested for sitting in a "whites-only" railroad car, and he argued that segregation violated the 13th and 14th Amendments. However, the Court ruled 7-1 that segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were equal, thereby legalizing racial segregation in public facilities. This decision entrenched discriminatory practices and reinforced segregation until it was overturned by later rulings like Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Separate is Inherently Unequal

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The case challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in public schools, arguing that segregated educational facilities were inherently unequal. The plaintiffs, led by Oliver Brown, a parent of a child who had to attend a segregated school, contended that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," stating that segregation generated a sense of inferiority among African American children that undermined their educational opportunities. This ruling effectively mandated the desegregation of public schools across the United States and marked a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights Movement.

U.S. v. Virginia (1996) - Sex and Equal Protection

U.S. v. Virginia (1996) was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed gender discrimination in public education. The case involved the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a public military college that had exclusively admitted male students. The U.S. government challenged VMI's policy under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, arguing that the exclusion of women from the institution violated their right to equal protection. The Court ruled 7-1 in favor of the U.S., stating that the exclusion of women from VMI was unconstitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized that any gender-based discrimination by state-run institutions must serve an important governmental interest and must be substantially related to achieving that interest. The Court found that VMI's single-gender policy was based on stereotypes rather than legitimate educational goals, marking a significant step forward in the fight for gender equality and the protection of women's rights under the Constitution.

4o miniU.S. v. Virginia (1996) - Sex and Equal Protection