Constitutional Law First Amendment Review

Important Holdings: 

Religion in Schools + Government Funding

Textbooks are allowed to be funded, teachers salaries cannot be funded (Lemon v. Kurtzman)

Ten Commandments are not allowed in public school classrooms (Stone v. Graham)

Reimbursements of transportation costs are constitutional (Everson v. Board of Education)

Inviting clergy to official public school ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause (Lee v. Weissman)

Religious Based Clubs are allowed to form within schools (Board of Education Westside v. Mergens)

State funding education to become a minister and study ministerial education is supporting a tax-supported church, which is unconstitutional (Locke v. Davey)

Optional Prayer within schools is unconstitutional (Wallace v. Jaffree)

Non-Denominational, voluntary prayer, in schools is unconstitutional (Engle v. Vitale)

The exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendments guarantee of free exercise of religion. (Trinity Lutheran v. Comer)

Discriminating against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely based on their religious character is unconstitutional (Carson v. Makin)

Student-led, student-initiated prayer violates the Establishment Clause (Sante Fe Independent v. Doe)

Religion in Public Spaces + Government Funding

Religious Symbols with non-religious connotations are permitted (American Legion v. American Humanists Association)

Not all religious celebrations funded by the government violate the establishment clause; Jewish menorah does not violate the EC, while the Christian Nativity Scene does violate the EC (County of Alleghany v. ACLU)

Free Exercise Clause Limits

School officials can pray outside of school hours, and Kennedys decision to pray after games didn’t violate the First Amendment (Kennedy v. Bremerton)

Ways of Seeing the Establishment Clause: 

Non-Preferentailists: 

As long as one religion is not preferred over another or religion is not preferred over non-religion, there is no problem with some government assistance to religion or religious institutions. 

Separatist: 

Believing the proper interpretation of the Constitution should acknowledge a wall of separation between Church and State. Aid to religion and entanglement between religion and state should be as minimal as possible. The Lemon Test is Separatist/ 

** Separatist approach peaked during the Warren Court, from the 1950s to the 1970s. 

Important “Tests”:

Endorsement/Neutrality Test: 

Does the government endorse religion, or is it neutral? Would a reasonable person see the government's action as endorsing religion? Some people saw the endorsement question as being a part of the Lemon Test

Statute and Religion Test: 

If a statute infringes upon: 

1. Religious Belief - there is absolute protection

2. Religious Speech - gets some protection

3. Religious Conduct

Seeger Test:

1. The beliefs must be sincere and meaningful, and have a similar significance in the person's life as a traditional religious being

2. The belief doesn’t need to come from a religious tradition, but can be a personal belief

3. The belief does not need to be theistic, or based on belief of a Supreme Being

Lemon Test:

1. Does the statute have a secular purpose?

2. Could the primary effect be one that either promotes or inhibits religion?

3. Does the state provide for excessive government entanglement of religion?

Sherbert Test: 

If you have an infringement on religious conduct, the court must apply strict scrutiny. Government cannot infringe unless: 

• Compelling government interest

• Narrowly tailored

Free exercise analysis:

1. Religious belief: absolute protection of free exercise 

2. Religious speech

3. Religious conduct

Strict Scrutiny: 

1. Compelling government interest (remedy past discrimination)

2. Narrowly tailored to achieve the interest (is the government legitimately interested in achieving this goal)

Free Exercise Clause: Religion should be free from government intrusion 

1. Religious belief

2. Protection of religious speech (Cantwell) 

3. Religious conduct (Sherbert, Yoder)

Smith Test: 

Used where a law incidentally (not on purpose) burdens religious practice

A law may burden religion if it is neutral and generally applicable, but if not, then the burden on religion must be justified by a compelling government interest. 

Only in cases involving two fundamental rights should strict scrutiny be applied to laws of general applicability

Sherbert Test: 

Used in cases where a law discriminates against religion or is enforced in a discriminatory way 

Neutral Laws of general applicability: 

1. State has a compelling reason for its laws

2. Applies strict scrutiny: Has it narrowly tailored to meet its objectives

gheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

Facts: ACLU challenged 2 holiday displays that were Christian + Jewish, respectively. The ACLU claims the displays constituted state endorsement of religion. 

Issue: Did the public display violate the Establishment Clause?

Holding: Jewish display didn’t because it was a symbol; Christian one did because it was the birth of Jesus Christ. Also held that not all religious celebrations violated the establishment clause. 

Everson v. Board of Education

Facts: NJ School Board reimburses the parents of students in transportation costs who attend private school. 

Holding: The reimbursements are constitutional

Rationale: The statute doesn’t hamper its citizens from the exercise of religion - it doesn’t exclude any certain group of people. If these costs weren’t paid, there’s a chance these student’s wouldn’t attend these schools. Basic public services serve the same exact purpose - parents would prohibit their kids from attendinging if these services weren’t provided. 

United States v. Seeger

Facts: Seeger was convicted of refusing to be held in the armed forces. He argued that he was exempt under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which said he wouldn’t need to serve if there was a particular religious belief that prevented him from doing so. He was a pacifist and argued he was denied an exemption because he did not believe in a Supreme Being. He argued it was unconstitutional because it required proof of a belief in a Supreme Being. 

Holding: Exemption from military service 

Lee v. Weisman

Facts: During a middle school graduation ceremony, the principal invited a rabbi to pray with them, and a parent filed a permanent injunction barring school officials from inviting clergy to ceremonies. 

Issue: Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause?

Holding: Inviting clergy to public school ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause. 

Board of Education Westside v. Mergens

Facts: School administration denied permission for students to form a Christian Club, because there was no faculty advisor. This violated the Equal Access Act, which requires schools who receive federal funds to provide equal access to student groups seeking religious content. 

Holding: The Equal Access Act protected the formation of the Christian Club

Van Orden v. Perry

Facts: In the Texas State Capitol, there was a large monolith on its grounds thats primary content contained the Ten Commandments

Holding: Monolith allowed under the Establishment Clause; having religious content consistent with religious doctrine doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause

Rationale: History proves religion has been important from our nations origins

Locke v. Davey

Facts: Washington State had a scholarship program which gave money to talented students. Davey won it and wanted to study theology, in particular to become a minister,  but the state wouldn’t allow it because their State Constitution bans funding of religion education. Davey claims that it violated his Establishment and Free Exercise Clause Rights. 

Holding: State doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause because taxpayer money to pay for someone to become a minister is a tax supported church

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Fact: Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, prayed at the 50 yard line after games and the school district asked him to stop and refused to let him renew his contract. Kennedy sued and said it violates his First Amendment Rights. 

Holding: School’s efforts to prevent prayer violates the coaches free exercise rights. Court

Important Holdings on Religious Freedom and Government Interaction:

• Lemon v. Kurtzman: Government funding of teachers' salaries is unconstitutional; textbooks are permissible.

• Stone v. Graham: Displaying Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

• Everson v. Board of Education: Reimbursement of transportation costs for students attending private religious schools is constitutional.

• Lee v. Weisman: Inviting clergy to school ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.

• Board of Education Westside v. Mergens: Students can form religious clubs in schools.

• Locke v. Davey: State funding for education to become a minister is unconstitutional.

• Wallace v. Jaffree & Engel v. Vitale: Optional and non-denominational prayers in schools are unconstitutional.

• Trinity Lutheran v. Comer: Excluding churches from a neutral aid program violates free exercise of religion.

• Carson v. Makin: Disqualifying recipients for their religious character is unconstitutional.

• Sante Fe Independent v. Doe: Student-initiated prayer violates the Establishment Clause.