Week 2: FE (3)

First Amendment and Interaction of Religion and Government

  • The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that respect an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, establishing the relationship between religion and government.

Sherbert vs. Verner and Judicial Standards

  • Introduced a test for determining if free exercise rights are being violated.

  • The test requires:

    • Evaluation of whether the law in question imposes a substantive burden on religious exercise.

    • Determination if the government has a compelling interest in enforcing the law.

  • The interest must be pursued through the least restrictive means possible.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder Case

Context

  • Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law mandates children attend school until 16.

  • The Amish community seeks exemption after eighth grade as they believe higher education would expose their children to harmful worldly influences.

Legal Questions Raised

  • Is the Amish objection based on religious grounds or philosophical concerns?

  • Chief Justice Burger determined the Amish objections are religious in nature, contrasting school values with their beliefs.

Supreme Court's Decision

  • The Court recognized the state's compelling interest in education but determined that the means of enforcing compulsory schooling until age 16 was too restrictive.

  • The decision allowed the Amish to educate their children according to their beliefs while still fulfilling minimal education requirements.

  • Dissent by Justice Douglas emphasized the need to consider children’s rights and perspectives in these decisions.

Court's Test Application

  1. Is there a religious-based objection?

  • The court agreed the Amish lifestyle and education choices stem from deep religious conviction.

  1. Does the state have a compelling interest?

  • Yes, education is a recognized interest of the highest order.

  1. Is the burden on religious exercise the least restrictive?

  • The court concluded that Wisconsin’s requirements were too restrictive of the Amish community’s religious practices.

Other Relevant Cases

Employment Division vs. Smith

  • Native American workers were denied unemployment benefits due to drug use (peyote) considered sacramental.

  • The Supreme Court ruled against the workers, stating that the state does not have to accommodate religious practices when laws are valid and neutral.

The Significance of Neutral Laws

  • The majority opinion argued that neutral laws of general applicability should not require compelling interest scrutiny as they apply equally to all, regardless of religion.

Dissenting & Concurring Opinions

  • Dissenters called for the compelling interest test due to the historical context of indigenous religious practices.

  • Justices argued for a balance between government interests and the free exercise of religion, highlighting past cases that upheld religious protections.

Evolving Standards of Judicial Scrutiny

  • The Supreme Court has evolved its interpretation of the compelling interest standard and the rigorousness of legal scrutiny over time. Different tests (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny) were introduced depending on the context of the legislative action in question.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The ongoing debate centers around delineating between valid state interests and the preservation of religious freedoms, particularly for minority communities. The development of these cases continues to shape First Amendment jurisprudence.