civil liberties midterm - new cases

Matal v. Tam

band name trademark, denied because of ‘disparagement clause’ in the Lanham act.

Lanham Act is unconstitutional because it is content based and infringing on free speech. also, trademarks are not government speech.

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York

Energy shortage → ban on electricity advertisements

Regulation was content-based and failed strict scrutiny because it was not least restrictive

McCullen v. Coakley

sidewalk abortion counselor - 35 foot buffer made it difficult to have the conversations.

The law was content-neutral BUT it was not narrowly tailored so it infringed on her 1A rights.

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp

A boy protested daily devotional exercises by remaining seated and silently reading the Quran

This was religious ceremony, thus violating Establishment Clause (advancing a religion)

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Revenue from state taxes went to reimburse nonpublic schools for expenses for teachers’ salaries - as long as they were secular. 96% of students in nonpublic schools attended religious schools.

These laws violated establishment and free exercise clauses because it was excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Scholarship program to help a suffering school district; students could receive scholarships for religious or nonreligious schools, but 80% of the schools were religious and 97% of the students used vouchers to go to religious schools.

Vouchers did NOT violate establishment clause because it was a program of true private choice, not government aid directly to religious schools.

Edwards v. Aguillard

Law required teaching both evolution and creationism if either was taught.

Violated the establishment clause. Failed lemon test because it was not enacted with a secular purpose.

Van Orden v. Perry

A monument with the 10 Commandments was in a park surrounding the Texas capitol.

This did not violate the establishment clause because it was part of our history, and was a passive monument. They didn’t really use Lemon.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association

A cross sculpture was dedicated as a WWI memorial and had to be moved and the county took control of it, spending money to preserve and maintain it.

Court ruled this was not an establishment clause violation because it could be historical and it’s impossible to tell if it was for religious purposes or a symbol for the war. Used the alternative to Lemon: looking to the historical meaning to guide their decisions.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Football coach who prayed on the field after the games.

The court ruled that he was not violating the establishment clause and the school was prohibiting his private speech by firing him. This was a quiet, personal religious observance protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses. good example of tension btw establishment clause and free exercise clause.

Sherbert v. Verner

She was suddenly required to work on Saturdays but that was her church’s sabbath so she did not go and got fired. filed for unemployment benefits but got rejected.

The denial of her unemployment benefits infringed on her free exercise of religion. There was no compelling state interest.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Amish parents violated sate law for removing their children after 8th grade.

This infringed on the Free Exercise clause because there was no compelling state interest. It was clearly based in religion. while the state has interest in educating its citizens, the extra two years don’t make enough of a difference for it to be state interest.

Employment Division, Department of HR of Oregon v. Smith

He was fired from his job at a drug and alcohol abuse clinic for using Peyote - a drug used in Native American religious rituals. He was denied unemployment benefits.

The denial of unemployment benefits did not infringe on his free exercise of religion because this is a valid and neutral law and Oregon has an interest in regulating drug usage. This was not an attempt to regulate religion.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah

Santeria is a religion with animal sacrifice. Residents of Hialeah did not want them to build a church so they made a law outlawing the killing of animals for ritual slaughter.

The law infringed on Free Exercise because it was specifically outlawing the practice of Santeria while allowing for other forms of animal killings. While this law was neutral, it was clearly not generally applicable: it targeted a specific group.