Modern Free exercise law

BOE of Kiryas Joel v> Grumet 1994

-The village of Kiryas Joel in NY is a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim. To comply with the IDEA, Kiryas Joel had to send special education students to public schools outside the community. The students distincitve dress and religious customs along with their disabilities, created panic, fear and trauma

-New York responded by creating a new school district that encompassed only the community of Kiryas Joel

-The Supreme Court ruled that such action violated the establishment clause

Mitchell V Helms

-the court rules that gov agencies may lend educational materials to both public and private schools

-case reduces the lemon test to two prongs

McCreary County V. ACLU of Knetucky

-two KY counties post large copies of ten commandments in courthouses. ACLU sues under the establishment clause

-during appeal the county revises the display to include other historical docs contaning religious references, including a sign about the historical influence of the ten commandments

-court says no by a 5-4 decision under first prong of lemon test

Van Orden v Perry

-ten commandments monument displayed on grounds ode to state capitol

-park contained 17 other monuments and 21 historical markers

-by a vote of 5-4 court upholds constitutionality of the ten commandemnts monument

-Justice Breyer is the only justice to chamge votes from the McCreary case

Town of Greece v Galloway

-can towns use volunterr chaplains to being legislative sessions with a prayer

-5-4 accommodationist ruling in favor of town of greece

American Legion v American Humanist Association

-can donated 40 ft cross by displayed on public land

-7-2 accomodationist ruling in favor of American Legion

-At least four cconsideratiopns show that retaining establsihed religiously expressive monuments, symbols and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones

Espinoza v departent of Revenue

-can public funds that provide tax credits to attend private schools be used by students to attend religious schools

-5-4 accommodationist ruling in favor of espinoza

-MT law violates equal protection not establsihment clause

Carson v Makin

-can school vouchers provided by a state be used to pay for religious based private schools

-6-3 accommodationsist ruling in favor of Carson

-no violation of establishment clause, Maines restircitons on vouchers violate the free exertise clause

Kennedy v Bremerton

-can high school football coach engage in slient prayer after a game in view of his prayers

-6-3 ruling in favor of Kennedy

-court weights free exercise and free speech above establishment

Approaches to establishment cases

-separationism

Religion clauses are interpreted to mean gov cannot support religion

-accommodationism

Premised on the belief that religiong and religous groups are important players in society in general and politics in particular

state should accomodtae religous life when possible but cant benifit one religon over another one

-neutrality

Under this view the court should essentially igrnoe religion it should not take steps to promote or impede religion

-endorsemnt

For justice o connor the establshment clause simply forbids government endorsemnt of religion accommodations of religion are ok as long as they are applied indiscriminately

-coercion

for Kennedy establsuhment clause simply forbids gov coercion

-Equal treatment

belief that gov assistance to religion is ok if that support is distributed equally and in the furtherance of free exercise

while neutrality leans toward separationism equal treatment leans toward accommodationismn

-History and tradition

idea that establishment clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understanding

Suing under the free exercise clause

Reasonable basis test

-court will uphold restricitions on free exercise if they are in pursuit of a legitimate gov interest and the law is reasonably related to that interest

Intermediate scrutiny test

-restrictions on free exercise are okay if they are in pursuit of an important gov interest and the law is substantially related to that interest

Strict scrutiny test

-restriction on free exsercise are acceptable if they are in pursit of a compelling gov interest and the law is narrowly tailored to acheve that interst

Jehovahs witness cases and free exercise

-Minersville v Gobitis

-West Virgina v Barnette

-Prince v Massachisetts

Braunfeld v Brown

-A PA law prohbited retail stores from doing business on sunday

-2 philadelphia merchant both Orthodox Jews, objected because their religion required them to be closed on Saturday as well. They charged that the sunday closing law impaired their ability to earn a livelihood

Sherbert V Verner

-under a SC unemployment statue workers were ineligible for benefits if they failed without good cause to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employment office

Wisconsin v Yoder

-Wisconsin like many states required students to attend school until age 16

-an Amish community refused to send its children to public schols beyond 8th grade arguing that is hindeed their kids ability to learn