Free - Exercise Clause

Wisconsin V Yoder Facts

Amish families were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that stated all kids must attend public school until 16. The families refused as it violated their religious beliefs

Wisconsin V Yoder Question

Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Wisconsin V Yoder Conclusion

Unanimous Decision

States cannot force individuals to attend school when it violates their first amendment right

Not all beliefs rise to the demand of the “religious cause of the first amendment”

• must have evidence of a strong religious practices

The state did not prove that the kids benefitted from the two extra years of schooling

• Amish Kids continue their education through their vocational training

Lyng V Northwest Indian Facts

Then US forest service wanted to pave a roadway in the chimney rock area of the Six Rivers national Forrest.

A study found that the roadway would create reparably damage on grounds that the native Americans have used for religious rituals

After the forest service decided to go through with the roadway, the Native Americans decided to sue

Lyng V Northwest Indian Question

Did the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock area?

Lyng V Northwest Indian Conclusion

5 - 3 for Lyng

The forest service was free to build on the lands

“it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”

Does the government action create a substantial burden?

• substantial burden only exist where the government imposes a sanction (fine or imprisonment) or denies a benefit to individuals

Government could not operate if it had to satisfy every citizens religious needs and desires

First amendment does not give one group veto power over public programs that did not harm their free exercise of religion

Employment Division of Oregon V Smith Facts

Two drug counselors took a powerful hallucinogenic as a part of a religious ritual as members of the Native American Church

• They were then fired

The counselors tried to get unemployment benefits

• They were denied because their dismissal was due to work-related “misconduct”

• Appellate court reversed this decision

• SCOTUS then reversed the state supreme court’s decision

Employment Division of Oregon V Smith Question

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

Employment Division of Oregon V Smith Conclusion

6 - 3 for Employment Division

An Individuals religious beliefs do not excuse them from complying with a valid law that is about conduct the government is able to regulate

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. V. City of Hialeah Facts

The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the religion of Santeria

• Animal Sacrifice as a form of worship

After announcing a church would be formed in Florida, the city counsel adopted laws that prohibited having animal for religious slaughter/sacrifice

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc V City of Hialeah Question

Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc V City of Hialeah Conclusion

Unanimous decision for the church

The ordinances were not neutral nor generally applicable.

They were exclusively applied to the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary

Locke V Davey Facts

The Washington State Promise Scholarship gives college scholarship money to talented students

• Cannot be used in a theology degree that is promoting belief

• Washington’s Constitution prohibits funding religious instruction

Joshua Davey gave up his Promise scholarship to major in pastoral studies

Davey filed suit, saying the state constitution's ban on funding religious instruction violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion

• District Court rejected Davey’s claim

• The Appellate Court reversed the district court’s decision

Locke V Davey Question

If a state provides college scholarships for secular instruction, does the First Amendment's free exercise clause require a state to fund religious instruction?

Locke V Davey Conclusion

7 - 2 for Locke

It does not violate the first amendment’s free exercise constitution

• Nothing in either the scholarship program or the state constitution "suggests animus towards religion."

States have a "historic and substantial interest" in excluding religious activity from public funding.