Protecting Civil Liberties Test 1

Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) - NC

The military can enforce a dress code.
"specialized society" - let military do whatever to 'achieve military goals'

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) - MC

Facts
supplemental funds fro non-religious teachers salaries
Rule: To be constitutional, aid to religious schools must meet all 3 prongs
1) secular legislative purpose AND
2) primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion AND
3) no excessive government entanglement with religion
Holding
Policy is unconstitutional because prong 3 was not met
Reasons: The secular legislative purpose was making secular education better
Very hard to tell if teachers are saying anything religious (not like a textbook)
Religion is part of everything in a religious school
Teachers get hired and fired by religious figures
They only way for government to police teacher who get money would be too intrusive

United States v. Ballard (1944) - NC

Sincerity of beliefs, rather than the truth, is the proper standard for defining religion.

Reynolds v. United States (1879) - NC

Polygamy may be outlawed
Introduced the belief/action dichotomy
Congress can NEVER regulate opinion or thoughts, but CAN regulate actions that violate the social order

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) - MC

Facts
You need a permit to solicit money
To get a permit, you need to go to a state official to prove religion or charity
The state official basically gets to prioritize mainstream religion by approving certain individual permits to solicit money
"Is the government's action constitutional or unconstitutional?"
Rule(s)
14th amendment incorporated in the 1st amendment. Religious protections
Valid Secular Policy Test: a state policy is constitutional if it serves a legitimate (non-religious) goal is not directed at any particular religion.
KNOW THIS AND THE CASE ITS ASSOCIATED WITH
Holding
Allowing state official wide discretion to define religion was unconstitutional
Reasons
Set a precedent -> fundamental reason
Neutrality
Freedom to act is not absolute
Government can regulate time, place, and manner
State interest (reducing fraud) was legit
The process was too subjective, so the policy was not neutral
Public safety/interest (covid, family time - limiting solicitation)
Valid Secular Policy test
This test is based on the idea of neutrality

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) - NC

The state had a legitimate secular reason for the flag salutes (fostering patriotism)

Prince v. Massachusetts (1940)-NC

States may regulate religious practices that may be harmful to kids (like employment)
Labor laws are a valid secular policy

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) - NC

laws that burden religion must meet two criteria:
1) They must have an important, neutral, secular end
2) They must use the least restrictive means

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) - MC

Facts:
State: "were not going to pay you unemployment benefits because you can work, you just don't want to"
Rule:
Incidental burden of free exercise of religion is constitutional if
1) The government has a compelling (big deal) state interest
AND (needs both)
2) Uses the least restrictive means available
Holding:
Denying unemployment benefits was unconstitutional
More protective of individual rights = government lost
Reasons:
There was no compelling state interest (no evidence policy prevented fraud). "Sunday togetherness" is not a compelling state interest
Choosing between religion and unemployment benefits infringes on freedom of religion

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - MC

Facts
Amish cant go to school past the 8th grade because it will expose them to "wordly views"
Rule:
Incidental burden of free exercise of religion is constitutional if
1) The government has a compelling state interest
AND
2) Uses the least restrictive means available
Holding:
States compulsory education law is unconstitutional
Reasons:
Have to balance important interests
A neutral law can be unconstitutional
Educating citizens is a compelling interest
Children are not at risk, Amish parents are providing for their children
BUT, making Amish kids go to school is not necessary for
1) making democracy stronger or
2) promoting self-reliance

Bob Jones University v. US (1983) - NC

Government interest in combating racism, and the policy does not stop BJU from practicing its religion. This suggests the Sherbert standard may be in jeopardy

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990) - MC

Facts:
Used peyote as a sacrament (like communion) and got fired
Filed for unemployment and got denied
Peyote: criminalized in Oregon
Rule:
A law is constitutional if it is neutral with respect to religion AND generally applicable
Holding:
Denying unemployment compensation was constitutional
Reasons:
Religious freedom cannot be an exemption to criminal laws
Strict scrutiny is to protect against unequal treatment
Not practical to way what is central to religion

RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Alot of people were unhappy with the Smith decision.
congress passes RFRA to reinstate Sherbert Yoder test for state/local government actions.
creates power struggle between congress and court. "who gets to say what the free speech clause protects?"

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) - MC

Facts:
Can't change or tear down historic building
Pastors wants RFRA to be applied here
Government actions
1) congress passes RFRA to reinstate Sherbert Yoder test for state/local government actions
2) local zoning board denies church permit
Rules:
1) Congress can only enforce the 14th if there is "congruence between the means and the end"
2) Smith test applies to free exercise claim
Holding:
1) congress passing RFRA was unconstitutional
2) Zoning board denying permit was constitutional
Reasons:
1) The 14th gives congress power to enforce constitution (not say what it covers)
1) Remedial laws have to be narrowly directed at a specific problem
1) RFRA tries to expand free exercise, not enforce it
SCOTUS wasn't okay with congress trying to do their job
2) since RFRA is invalid, smith applies
2) Zoning laws was neutral and generally applicable for all historic buildings

Hobby Lobby v. Burwell (2014) - NC

Religious companies are exempt from federal programs that violate their beliefs

Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) - NC

some aid to religious entities is okay as long as the money goes for a secular purpose.
Establishment clause = follow the money $$$

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) - MC

Facts:
Government authority sends money to transport kids to and from school (in leu of bussing)
Parents are choosing to send kids to private schools
Rule:
The establishment clause is incorporated to apply to the states
Important Concepts Introduced
Secular purpose
Neutrality
Holding:
Paying for buses for all kids is constitutional
Reasons:
The establishment clause came from a history of religious persecution
Opinion is very strict, yet roles of accommodationist
So, there is a string wall of separation between church and state (but buses don't violate that)
But free exercise means you can't exclude anyone from a benefit based on religion
This law applies to all students and all schools, so it like proving police protection or sidewalks or sewers.
The EC requires neutrality toward religion, not hostility

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - NC

School sponsored prayers in public schools violates the Establishment Clause (but no standard was announced)

Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) - MC

Facts:
Government action: suspending student
They are a public school
Rule:
To survive an EC, challenge a policy must have
1) A secular purpose AND
2) A primary effect that neither advance or inhibits religion (neutrality)
- gives the government more room to work:
- accidental non-neutrality is okay
- main effect has to be neutral
Holding:
Did suspending the student meet the standard?
It was unconstitutional to suspend him
Reason:
Didn't meet any of the prongs
Bible readings are not just about morality, it is religious
Exercise Clause and Free Exercise can overlap (violate or meet both/neither) but coercion (can't make me participate) has to be present to violate free exercise
EC and FE clause are BOTH broken in this case
Studying the bible as a topic is fine, you just can't advocate for it
The government have to be strictly neutral, neither aiding nor opposing religion

Walz v. Tax Commision of New York (1971) - NC

Tax exemption for religious organizations is constitutional
Introduced the idea of excessive government entanglement

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) - MC

Facts: in Cleveland - 5 options for school for kids (alternative learning) - 3 public, 2 private
Most students who go to private school, go to religious private schools (97%)
Designed to help students at or below poverty line -> educate poor kids
Rule: indirect aid to religious schools is constitutional if there is:
1) Neutrality AND
2) private choice
Holding: The Cleveland school voucher is constitutional
Reasons:
No financial incentive for public v private
Not pushing students for religious schools
There is a valid secular purpose: getting poor kids an education
3rd prong on Lemon is ignored, mostly second one
The voucher program is neutral
Giving $ to parents is different than giving it to religious schools
Parents, not government, endorse religion
Private schools get less $ per kid, so no pressure

Zorach v. Clausen (1952) - NC

Release programs to allow religious education off public school grounds are okay. STILL GOOD LAW!

Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) - NC

Even "radical" religious groups must have access (or right to free speech is violated)

Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) -NC

Funds may be given to religious newspapers at UVA. The benefits are neutral and there's no government endorsement of religion

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) - NC

Court outlaws bans on teaching evolution. Laws must be religiously neutral.
Leads to Aguillard.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - MC

Facts:
Options to teach in science class:
1) Teach evolutionism and creationism
2) Prohibits teachings of creationism (not just evolution)
3) teach neither
Rule:
Lemon Test
To be constitutional, aid to religious schools must meet all 3 prongs
1) secular legislative purpose AND
2) primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion AND
3) no excessive government entanglement with religion
Holding:
The law is unconstitutional because there is no valid secular purpose
Reasons:
Laws only purpose is to endorse religion
The law does not protect academic freedom: it takes away teachers' choice
The law isn't about fairness; you can teach creationism, but just not evolution
Creation science is a religious belief

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) - NC

Daily period of Silence in public schools is unconstitutional

Lee v. Weisman (1992)-NC

Prayer at public school gradations is unconstitutional

Sante Fe School District v. Doe (2000) - NC

Prayer at public school football games are unconstitutional

Marsh v. Chambers (1983) - NC

Prayer before legislative session is constitutional

Town of Greece v Galloway (2014) - MC

Facts:
Aimed to be inclusive
Can't tell people what to say in prayer
Because of the community most prayers end up being Christian
Greece would have allowed anything
Rule:
Prayer before legislating does not violate the establishment clause
Holding:
Greece's practice of inviting prayers before town meetings was unconstitutional
Reasons:
The same people who wrote the establishment clause hires a chaplain, so legislative prayer is okay
There was no sign of trying to convert people or advance a particular faith
Audience was not coerced into participating
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're coerced

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) - NC

Nativity scenes are okay if they are a part of a whole display
People spending money > religion

County of Alleghany v. ACLU (1989) - NC

Physical setting is key:
Nativity in courthouse = not okay
Christmas tree and menorah = okay
Celebrating holidays (many religions) > religious endorsement

Van Orden v. Perry (2005) - MC

Facts:
Government didn't pay for or maintenance of statues
On government grounds but not in forefront - Other stuff is around
Rules:
Not clear, no majority for one rule
Example of plurality rule
More than 2 opinions and you don't have a majority on rule (not holding)
Holding:
Monument with Ten Commandments on state grounds is constitutional
Votes for Different rules/reasons:
1) both secular and religious significance (4 justices)
2) context is not Soley religious (4 justices)
3) primarily non-religious purpose (1 justice)
4) State can favor religion broadly (1 justice)
Treat all religions the same v. you can't choose religion > non religion
You can think multiple things are true
5) EC should not apply to the states (1 justice)

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012) - MC

Facts:
Retaliation case
Government action: right to sue for retaliation
Can't sue someone for firing you
Cause of action: you can sue someone
Rule:
"Ministerial clauses in 1st amendment"
EC: prevent government from appointing ministers
FEC: prevents it from interfering with religious groups to select their own
Holding:
It was unconstitutional to let a fired minister to sue under anti-discrimination law
Reasons:
Government can't tell a church who to fire/hire as a minister
The law against retaliation is valid and neutral, but that doesn't matter here
Government can't interfere with "an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself"
A called teacher is covered by the ministerial exception: they have training, are voted on by the congregation, and teach religious doctrine
Preventing discrimination < church control over preachers

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) - MC

Facts:
Owner denied to make cake for same-sex wedding. offered up other baked goods to couple
Rule: You can refuse work if it goes against your religion - not discriminatory
Holding: Forcing Phillips to bake the cake was unconstitutional
Reasons:
gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression