Law, Religion, & IR Midterm

Cincinnati Board of Education v. Minor (1872)

Complaint: John D. Minor argues that removing bible in schools violates religious freedoms

Majority opinion: Reading bible is prohibited in Cincinnati schools to allow students of all religions to enjoy “common school fund”

reference to TJ’s point about how religion should not require help from civil authority

Precursor to further use of the Establishment Clause in local and state govts.

Reynolds v. US (1879)

Complaint: US govt accused Reynolds of bigamy under  Federal Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. Reynolds argues that this is against his right to freedom of religion

unanimous decision:

• religious belief vs. religious action

• First amendement protects beliefs, but not criminal acts like polygamy

• 
  

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Complaint: activist Lemon argued that states should not be allowed to fund private religious schools for secular education

Majority opinion:

• “excessive entanglement” between govt. & religion — violates establishment clause, not entirely clear that the money would be going directly towards secular things

• main evils against the establishment clause include funding and sponsorship for one religion

• Lemon test: statute must have secular purpose, primary effect cannot be advancing a religion, and no excessive entaglement

dissent:

• funds are going to teachers teaching secular subjects; no empircal evidence that religious teachings would interfere with secular classes

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

• marked the first time the US supreme court applied the first amendment’s Free Excercise clause to state and local governments through the due process clause (14th amendement)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

• established that the Free Exercise clause of the first amendment does not excuse individuals from complying with valid, neutral laws of general applicability, even if those laws burden religious practices

Complaint: Smith & Black fired from job at drug rehab center for using peyote drug in Native American Religious ceremonies; argued that denial of benefits violated 1st Amendment right to Free exercise

Majority opinion:

• 6-3 ruling against S&B; FE clause does not relieve ppl from obligation to comply with neutral criminal law. Builds on Reynolds

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)

Complaint: store owners sued arguign that required health insurance plans for employees included coverage for contraception, violating Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (stops govt from placing heavy burden on person’s free exercise of religion unless using least restrictive means)

Majority opinion: 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby: small corporations are protected under the RFRA; family owned, for profit corporations can exercise religion

• health insurance plan would create considerable burden for Hobby Lobby

Dissent:

• RBG: slippery slope for commercial enterprises to opt out of any law they find objectionable

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

Complaint: meeting attendees sued town for violating est. clause by starting meetings with a prayer

Majority opinion: legislative prayer is deeply rooted in american history; court held that prayers do not have to be non-sectarian or generic. simply hearing a religious invocation does not equal unconstitutional coercion

Dissent: RBG, Sonia Sotomayor: town board meetigns involve ordinary citizens directly petitioning to local govt, making sectarian prayers exclusive and contrary to norms of religious equality

Marion County abortion case

• landmark legal challenge, testing whether state religious freedom laws can block near-total abortion bans

Complaint: ACLU of Indiana argued that Indiana’s near total abortion ban violates states RFRA for those whose sincere beliefs require/permit abortion access

Decision: abortion ban violates state’s RFRA by placing “substantial burden” on individuals whose sincerely held religious beliefs require abortion care

Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Complaint: high school football coach knelt to pray durign a game & lost his job: school district infringed upon Free Exercise clause

Majority opinion:

• 6-3 rulign that coach has the right to pray on the field

• casting aside lemon test; justices concluded that Lemon had unfairly sidelined or created artificial tension with FE and FS clauses

US v. Ballard (1944)

Complaint: fed. got accused Ballards of mail fraud, saying they solicited funds by falsely making claims about the supernatural

Majority opinion:

• Free exercise clause forbids submitting truth/falsity of religious tenets to a jury

• Jury can only hold whether or not someone is sincere in religion, not whether religion is true — this distinguishes US law from other countries’ court systems

Dissent: How can you prove fraud if you can’t say that somehting is wrong?

US v. Seeger (1964)

Complaint: Seeger convicted for refusing to be inducted into the armed forces - argued he was subject to exemption under Universal Military Training and Service Act 0 related to a spreme being

Seeger = pacifist, didn’t believe in Supreme being, so was denied exemption

Majority opinion: religious belief does not need to involve a traditional deity — applies to any sincere & meaningful belief. Seeger’s beliefs held with the utmost sincerity, fuctioned as deeply religious conviction

Welsh v. US (1964)

Complaint: Welsh had to report for physical examination for military service; objected but did not believe in Supreme Being. Objected to war as a concept/for ethical reasons (not religiously founded)

Majority Opinion:

• courty voted to overturn Welsh’s criminal conviction — draft exemption law should cover anyone whose conscience is strongly opposed to war & causes deep moral guilt

• a lot repeated from Seeger; shows that govt gets to decide what religion is, govt creates legal privileges that require a boundary between protected and unprotected beliefs

Dissent: majority went too far, exemption should be limited to traditional religious training

Malnak v. Yogi (1979)

Complaint: Yogi = Guru for the Beatles, developed transcendental meditation, gets added to high school curriculum. Parents/watchdogs sued, claiming course was establishing religion, while class claimed to be secular

Majority Opinion:

• class was too characteritic of religion, does not pass lemon test

• EVEN THOUGH this “religion” doesn’t include a diety and doesnt have traditional definition fo religion

• decision to take a more inclusive definition of religion based on past court cases (Seeger and Welsh prob), applying this definition to free exercise/est. clause

• also had to do with pressures to do an off-campus Puja (prayer) to a deity

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Associaton (1988)

Compliant: The US Forest Service wanted to build a road through Native American land where spiritual rituals took place.

Majority opinion:

• free ex. clause does not prevent federal govt from authorizing infrastructure projects on public land, even if Native American religious sites are damaged

• only incidental burden placed on the religion, didnt penalize Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes into violating religious beliefs/penalize them or strip them of civil rights for practicing their faith

Dissent:

• FE clause protects against any form of govt action that substantially penalizes the practice or religion

• just because its public land, this does not mean govt has absolute freedom to use the land in a way that destroys indigenous traditions

Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth church (1969)

complaint: local churches that belong to the larger org wanted to break away because they didnt want women to be able to speak in front of the church

Building was built under the assumption that a certain religion would be followed there

Majority opinion:

• Civil courts do not have authority to award property on the basis of interpretation & significance that the civil courts have assigned to aspects of the church doctrine —> therefore Georgia courts violated first amendment

Awad v. Ziriax (2010)

Complaint: Awad filed lawsuit in federal district court challenging “Save our State Amendment” - ballot measure that sought to ban state courts from considering/using sharia law

Majority opinion: Larson test: when a law grants explicit preference to certain religious denominations over others, govts must prove:

1. compelling state interest

2. Narrow tailoring: rule must be closely fitted to achieve that specific interest

Awad argued that threatened injury to him was greater than state interest

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

• US federal law that prohibits the govt from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion - even if the burden results from a neutral law of general applicability, unless the govt can prove that the action:

  • furthers a compellign govt interest

  • uses the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, aka strict scrutiny

Details of US legal system

Multiple sovereignties:

• state govts: constitution, codified laws, legal precedent

• Federal govt: constitution principles, codified laws (statuatory rights), legal precedent

• local laws & ordinances

• govt agency regulations

• non-govt judiciaries

• native american reservations

Navajo Nation v. US Forest Services

• sewage water sprayed on native lands by US forest services for ski resort

• ruling against native tribes, ultimately govt land, decided that wastewater did not impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RFRA bc it did not involve govt coercion or legal penalties

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998

• Right of freedom of religion is being threatened in countries around the world — congress is denouncing religious persecution

• religious believers worldwide are suffering from govt supression of religious freedoms

• congress is passing resolutions to protect Christians worldwide

• Channeling US security & development assistance to govts who do not violate, standing for liberty

• creates ambassador at Large, appointed by president to advance right to freedom of religion

• creation of commission on Internationl Religious freedoms; reviews facts about religious persecution, policy recommendations, hearings, monitoring religious freedom

• An example of Expert Religion (from Hurd), pushing policy-relevant religious agenda

Sovereignty thesis

Religion structures sovereign power; monotheism mirrors monarchy

Jurisdiction shopping

Prevalent in countries with legal pluralism. Occurs when litigants strategically choose which religious or secular court to file their case in based on which system is likely to grant them the most favorable outcome.

No Religious Test Clause

bans govt from requiring any specific religious belief, affiliation, or test oath as a condition for holding public office.

Lemon test

A govt action must:

1. have a secular purpose

2. primary effect must not enhance or inhibit religion

3. no excessive entanglement