Principles of American Government Essay 2 Supreme Court Cases

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Date, Who, What

1972

Amish families (Yoder) vs. State of Wisconsin

Issue: Can the state force Amish children to attend high school?

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Historical Context

Post-1960s era → expanding individual rights

Court was very active in protecting liberties (Warren Court influence)

Tension between:

• Modernization (education, economy)

• Traditional religious communities

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Responding to

Compulsory education laws

Earlier cases expanding religious freedom

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Basic facts

Law: must attend school until 16

Amish stop at 8th grade

Believe high school:

• Promotes individualism

• Encourages competition

• Leads away from religious life

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Amish Side

Religion is a complete system of life

High school = existential threat to community

Children trained through:

• Farming

• Community work

Survival of religion depends on separation

Wisconsin v. Yoder: State Side

Education needed for:

• Civic participation

• Economic independence

Police power:

• Health

• Morals

• Welfare

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Rule

STRICT SCRUTINY:

• Compelling interest

• Least restrictive means

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Court Reasoning for the rule

Amish:

• Proven self-sufficient society

• Low crime, strong community

High school:

• Not necessary for their lifestyle

• Disrupts religious transmission

State interest:

• General, not specific enough

Court emphasizes:

• Sincerity of belief

• Historical continuity of Amish life

→ Burden on religion is severe and direct

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Key Idea

Religion includes practices, lifestyle, and community survival

Wisconsin v. Yoder: Dissent

William O. Douglas

Focus on child autonomy

Children might want:

• Education

• Different life choices

Employment Division v. Smith: Date, Who, What

1990

Smith vs Oregon

Issue: Does religion excuse illegal drug use?

Employment Division v. Smith: Historical context

Late 20th century → concern about:

• Drug use

• Legal uniformity

Shift toward limiting judicial activism

Employment Division v. Smith: Response To

Reaction against:

• Expansive rulings like Yoder

Court pulling back from strict scrutiny

Employment Division v. Smith: Facts

Peyote used in Native American religious ritual

Workers fired → denied unemployment

Employment Division v. Smith: Smith Side

Religious ritual protected

Employment Division v. Smith: State Side

Drug laws must apply equally

Employment Division v. Smith: Rule

Neutral + generally applicable laws = valid

Employment Division v. Smith: Court Reasoning

If exemptions allowed:

• Endless claims

• Impossible to govern

Concern about:

• Fraudulent claims of religion

Court separates:

• Belief (protected)

• Action (regulated)

Employment Division v. Smith: Key Idea

Religious freedom is limited by rule of law

Employment Division v. Smith: Dissent

Government should accommodate religion

Underestimates burden on minorities

Holt v. Hobbs: Date, Who, What

2015

Prisoner vs Arkansas prison

Holt v. Hobbs: Historical Context

Post-9/11 → increased attention to Muslim rights

Expansion of statutory religious protections (RLUIPA)

Holt v. Hobbs: Response to…

Smith limitations

Congressional laws restoring strict scrutiny

Holt v. Hobbs: Facts

Prison bans beards

Muslim inmate requires beard

Holt v. Hobbs: Holt side

Religious obligation

Holt v. Hobbs: State side

Security risks

Holt v. Hobbs: Final ruling

Strict Scrutiny (RLUIPA)

Holt v. Hobbs: Court Reasoning

Substantial burden:

• Forces violation of religious belief

Government fails:

• No evidence beard is dangerous

• Alternatives exist

Court emphasizes:

• Government must do MORE work

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Date, Who, What

2025

Parents vs school system

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Historical Context

Modern debates:

• Gender identity

• Public education

Culture conflict over schools

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Response To

Builds on:

• Yoder (parental control)

• Smith (limits)

Mahmoud v. Taylor: facts

LGBTQ books introduced

No opt-out

Young children (K–5)

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Parent’s side

Undermines religious teaching

Influences identity

Mahmoud v. Taylor: State’s side

Promotes inclusion

Prevents discrimination

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Rule

If burden exists → strict scrutiny logic applies

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Court Reasoning

Children:

• Highly impressionable

Exposure:

• Can shape beliefs

Lack of opt-out:

• Increases burden

Lee v. Weisman: Date, Who, What

1992

Student vs school

Lee v. Weisman: Historical Context

Ongoing debates about religion in public schools

Lee v. Weisman: Response To

Earlier school prayer cases

Lee v. Weisman: Facts

Prayer at graduation

Lee v. Weisman: student side

Religious pressure

Lee v. Weisman: school side

Voluntary ceremony

Lee v. Weisman: rule

No coercion in religion

Lee v. Weisman: Court Reasoning

Psychological pressure matters

Students:

• Feel obligated

Authority = coercion

Lee v. Weisman: Key Idea

Subtle coercion violates Constitution

Lee v. Weisman: Dissent

Antonin Scalia

Tradition should be allowed

Roe v. Wade: Date, Who, What

1973

Roe vs Texas

Roe v. Wade: Historical Context

Women’s rights movement

Expanding privacy doctrine

Roe v. Wade: Response To

Griswold (privacy rights)

Roe v. Wade: Facts

Texas bans abortion

Roe v. Wade: Roe side

Privacy, liberty

Roe v. Wade: State side

protect life

Roe v. Wade: Rule

Fundamental right → strict scrutiny

Roe v. Wade: Court Reasoning

Liberty includes:

• Personal decisions

Balancing:

• Woman vs fetus

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: Date, Who, What

1992

challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, including informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, and spousal notification.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: Ruling

Undue burden

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: Reasoning

State may influence decisions

Cannot block access

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Date, Who, What

2022

The Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s 2018 law (the Gestational Age Act) that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: ruling

No fundamental right to abortion, leave it up to the states

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Court Reasoning

Constitution:

• No abortion mention

History:

• Not protected

Rejects:

• “Living constitution”