LST 447 Exam 2 Study Guide

Cantwell v. Connecticut

Case where the Valid Secular Policy Test originated. Petitioner and sons, all Jehovah's witnesses, were required by state law to get a certificate of approval for soliciting money for a cause. They felt this infringed on their First Amendment rights and filed suit. Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it relied on a state authority's opinion to determine what a religious cause is.

Braunfeld v. Brown

The Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to be closed on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews claimed the law unduly burdened them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well. The Court held that the law did not target Jews specifically as a group.

\- Valid secular purpose

Sherbert v. Verner

A woman was denied unemployment compensation for refusing to work on a Saturday - the last day of Sabbath. Violates free exercise cause, States' "compelling interest" was kept in mind.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Despite Wisconsin's law for students to stay in school until 16, Amish parents could withdraw child before for religious reasons. Free Exercise Clause; individual interest outweighs State's.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith

Two native americans were fired for using a religious drug on the job, and denied unemployment compensation. Does not violate free exercise clause since religion does not override valid law.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah

Animal Sacrifice is a protected form of free exercise of religion; Florida had no clear reason for the passing of the law; furthermore, the law did not apply to all animal slaughter, only that in religious ceremony, and was therefore targeting the Santeria religion

Everson v. Board of Education

Supreme Court upheld a law that allowed for parochial school students to be bused; students at church schools were riding public school buses; busing of students is a safety issue, not a religious issue

Lemon v. Kurtzman

government funding for parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Supreme Court decision that upheld a state program providing families with vouchers that could be used to pay for tuition at religious schools.

Edwards v. Aguillard

SCOTUS ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion and therefore infringes on rights guaranteed by the First Amendment

Town of Greece v. Galloway

the Court held that the practice of opening government meetings with a prayer did not violate the establishment clause because the practice was long-standing and no group was prevented from offering a prayer or forced to participate

Van Orden v. Perry

ruled that Texas could display the Ten Commandments because they were of historical value and part of the nation's traditions; even though the Establishment Clause prevents the government from enforcing a particular religion, the monument was not there just simply for having religious content

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

A woman became ill and was replaced at her job as a minister; the supreme court ruled that the EEOC did not protect people in religious groups, and that the state cannot enforce laws about labor within churches

American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Memorial cross there to honor veterans but overtime became associated with religion; non-religious organizations filed suit saying the Commissions acquiring of the cross violates the establishment clause; cross was allowed to remain because it was originally there to honor veterans before religion became associated with it

Schenck v. United States

Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of a socialist who had urged resistance to the draft during World War I; Justice Holmes declared that government can limit speech if the speech provokes a "clear and present danger" of substantive evils

Abrams v. United States

1. A man convicted of distributing anti-war leaflets
2. Supreme Court used bad-tendency doctrine, upheld conviction
3. First of Holmes-Brandeis dissent rejecting bad tendency doctrine, urging clear and present danger standard

Gitlow v. New York

1. Man convicted for publishing socialist manifesto (violated state law)
2. Man's conviction upheld
3. Significant because first time argument was made that First Amendment applied to states as well

Freedoms of the Press/Speech are protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment from the Federal Government and states

Brandenburg v. Ohio

KKK member arrested for violating an Ohio law prohibiting the syndication of expression and speech deemed to be objectionable, violent, and offensive; SCOTUS ruled in favor of member, Ohio statute violates 1st Amendment; distinguished the difference between implied violence and violent acts

* 1st amendment protected speech advocating violence at KKK rally

Whitney v. California

* Brandeis's concurrence arguably most important and cited opinion of First Amendment values
* A woman convicted under CA's Criminal Syndicalism law for organizing Communist Labor Party
* SCOTUS(supreme court) upholds conviction under "bad tendency" test

Dennis v. United States

1. A man and other Communist Party members indicted under Smith Act for conspiring to organize Communist Party which advocates principle of government overthrow (implies that it's a crime simply to be a part of the Communist Party)
2. Upheld conviction (standard of evil which may allow restriction of free speech)
3. Dissenters: Black and Douglas- Smith act is unconstitutional prior restraint, clear-and-present-danger test if properly applied would result in acquittal

McCreary County v. ACLU

Public officials constructed three different ten commandments displays; the displays were deemed unconstitutional. They did not have a legitimate secular purpose and were actively having a primary effect on advancing religion.

Belief Action Distinction

free exercise clause only bars government from interfering with religious beliefs, but NOT religious practices

* citizens are free to believe but not to ACT upon religious beliefs

Valid Secular Policy Test

If the state policy is in the interest to preserve a public good; analyzing if the policy serves a legitimate, non-religious goal. If so, the court will uphold it even if it interferes with religious beliefs

1) Can't target a specific religion.

2\.) Must be valid that it is truly neutral

Compelling Interest Test (Sherbert-Yoder)

Two-pronged test:


1. Does the law have a compelling government interest?
2. Does the law use the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest?

Smith Test

Replaced Sherbert-Yoder Test; strict scrutiny no longer used, general applicability now used

* Religion does not excuse individual from compliance with a valid and neutral law of general applicability

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion; held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision, which ruled that the it is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

restriction of timing of free speech, manner of the speech, and/or the place of the speech; (generally) NOT A DIRECT RESTRICTION ON SPEECH and therefore is content neutral

Strict Scrutiny

law will be upheld if the gov’t is able to show:

(1.) its regulations serves a compelling interest

(2.) there is no alternative to achieve the compelling interest (it is necessary, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive alternative)

gov’t has burden of proof

Intermediate scrutiny

the law will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose; gov’t has burden of proof

Rational basis

the law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; challenger has burden of proof

Espionage Act of 1917

A federal law that made it a crime for any person to share information intended to interfere with the U.S. armed forces or to promote the success of the country's enemies; no spying

Sedition Act of 1918

A federal law that furthered the Espionage act and found people guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts.

Clear and Present Danger Test

are the words in question used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create an obvious and current danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent

Bad tendency Test

forbid speech that corrupts society or that encourages crime; test abandoned because it was too broad

Preferred Freedoms

States that:

a. laws in conflict with the Bill of Rights are not presumed constitutional \n b. the judiciary has a special responsibility to protect freedom of speech \n c. the judiciary has a special responsibility to protect minority interests

Clear and Probable Danger Test

the test of whether the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability justifies an invasion of free speech necessary to avoid any danger

Imminent Lawless Action Test

three-part test that the government must meet if certain communication is not to be protected by the First Amendment:

(1) the speaker subjectively intended incitement

(2) in context, the words used were likely to produce imminent, lawless action

(3) the words used by the speaker objectively encouraged and urged incitement; replaced the "clear and present danger" test

Chilling Effect

the tendency for unclear government regulations to discourage the exercise of constitutionally protected rights

Separationist

Non-preferentialism

Endorsement

\

Coercion

Social Conflict

Accomodationist

Lemon Test

Determines whether a government law or action meets the requirements of the establishment clause


1. the challenged law/gov’t action must have a secular or nonreligious purpose
2. primary effect must be neither to advance not to inhibit religion
3. the operation must not foster excessive entanglement of gov’t with religion

Ministerial exception

bars the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions’ employment relationships with its “ministers”