POLI 411 Quiz 3

Employment Division v Smith (1990)

Smith ingested peyote for religious reasons and was fired from his job as a drug counselor so he sought unemployment was denied and sued for violation of free exercise clause. Court ruled against him stating that individuals have an obligation to comply with valid, neutral laws that are generally applicable and have an incidental effect on free exercise. Exceptions would be hybrid situations concerning two different fundamental freedoms. Congress enacted RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in response

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

enacted by Congress following the ruling in Employment Division v Smith and overturned by Boerne v Flores (1997). protects the exercise of religion by requiring government actions that substantially burden a person's religious beliefs to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

Amish parents prosecuted under Wisconsin law that required all children attend school until age 16, yet they argued it conflicted with their religious beliefs. Individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. Amish religion and their lifestyle are so closely intertwined that these regulations are too burdensome. Additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law

Boerne v Flores (1997)

Pastor received permission from Archbishop to tear down old church and construct a new one, but the permits were denied because it was constructed in 1923 and was covered under the city’s historic preservation program. The Church sued stating the construction of a new church was a form of religious exercise and the denial of the permits violates RFRA. City said RFRA was unconstitutional and The Court agreed. the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court and Congress overstepped its bounds

Under Boerne v Flores, what does the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment not authorize congress to do?

pass general legislation upon the rights of citizens, but they can pass corrective legislation that is necessary and proper for countering state laws that infringe upon rights

Reynolds v US

Congress enacted a law banning the taking of multiple wives as a way of regulating morality. Reylonds was convicted for practicing polygamy in Utah and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the law. Court said Congress was regulating conduct and not belief

West Virginia v Barnett

Barnetts, members of Jehovah’s Witness, thought pledge of allegiance pays homage to a graven image (a sin) and their children refused to say it in school and were expelled. The Court decided the State cannot compel obedience to a national symbol

Lukumi Babalu Aye v Hialeah (1993)

Santeria church set to open in Florida which utilized animal sacrifice in practices so city officials enacted ordinances against animal cruelty, limit public health risks associated with waste disposal and forbade ritual slaughter of animals. Court said a state law does not need to pass the compelling interest standard to be constitutional if a law is neutral and generally applicable, yet laws that fail this neutrality should be justified under compelling government interest and be narrowly tailed. This ordinance is not neutral and ordinaces specifically meant to supress religion, targeting this one religious group in particular. The law is also not neutral because the state allows many other animal killings and exterminations

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)

both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided state funding for aspects of non-secular, non-public education including teacher salaries and buying materials for students. The Court found that statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violated the Establishment clause of the first amendement. Created the lemon test

three prongs of the lemon test

in cases involving the establishment clause: law should neither inhibit nor promote religion, law should have a secular purpose, no excessive entanglement between church and state

Pennsylvania statute (1968) concerning Lemon v Kurtzman

provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional material for secular subjects

Rhode Island statute (1969) concerning Lemon v Kurtzman

provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers’ annual salaries

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v Schempp (1963)

A Pennyslvania law required public schools to read from the bible at the opening of each day. This case was consolidated with a Maryland case that had public school children read a chapter of the bible and read the Lord’s prayer. The Court ruled these laws were unconsitutional under the establishment clause

Town of Greece v Galloway (2014)

Town of Greece in Upstate NY began having local clergy give a prayer before each council meeting to give it a solemn and deliberate tone to invoke divine guidance. All relgious congregations welcome to submit as Town didn’t provide guidance for content or tone of prayer. There were only Catholic prayer due to makeup of congregation, so they were sued for violating establishment clause. Court found legislative prayer is consittutional as it is understood to be historically compatible with estblishment clause and it lends gravity to public buisness. It is also a tolerable symbolic expression that doesn’t establish a state church and the town made reasonable effort to accomodate all congregations in their prayer efforts

Why is legislative prayer constitutional?

historically understood to be compatible with establishment clause and lends gravity to public business and reminds law makers to transcend petty differences as they pursue higher goals on citizen’s behalf

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002)

Cleveland Ohio school district has a crisis in performance in 1990s, so the state took over the school and implemented Pilot Project Scholarship program which provided school vouchers for families. Most families sent their kids to private religious affiliated schools. Sued asking the court if the program has the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, which the court ruled it was neutral and one of true private choice

What distinction did the court draw in Zelma v Simmons-Harris (2002)

whether programs provide aid directly to religious schools or if this is a true private choice, where aid reaches religious schools only as a result of genuine and independent choice of private individuals

Van Orden v Perry (2005)

Historic monuments and statutes on Texas state capital meant to commemorate “people, ideals, and events that compose Texas identity” including 10 commandements statue donated n 1961. A lawyer objected saying Texas was sponsoring religion, but the placement of the monument represents passive use rather than an endorsement of religion. The Court rules texas treats all monuments as representing different strands of the state’s political and legal history (historic ambience of grounds), which doesn’t violate the establishment clause