Free - Exercise Clause

Wisconsin V Yoder

Facts

Members of the Old Amish Church were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that said all kids must attend public school until the age of 16.

The parents refused to send their kids to school because they said it went against their religious beliefs!

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?

Conclusion

Unanimous Decision

  1. States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights.

  2. Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment.

    1. Must be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters.

  3. Wisconsin law argued that the two extra years were essential to create effective citizens

    1. The court argued that the State provided no evidence showing any great benefit to having two extra years in the public schools.

    2. Amish kids also continued their education via their vocational training

  4. There is no evidence that the kids leaving the school would make them a burden to society.

    1. the Court argued that they had good vocational background to rely upon.

    2. They make a ton of money through their woodwork

Lyng V Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Facts

US forest service wanted to create a paved roadway that would cut through Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest

A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals.

  • Still decided to go through with it

After the Forest service decided to create the roadway, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association decided to sue

Question

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

Conclusion

5 - 3 for Lyng

The Forest Service was free to harvest the lands.

Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice of their religion, those effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs.

Would not force the individuals to violate their beliefs or be denied of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States

  • A substantial burden only exist where the government imposes a sanction (fine or imprisonment) or denies a benefit to individuals that they would otherwise be entitled to receive.

The government could not operate if “it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires,”

The First Amendment did not give any one group veto power over public programs that did not actually prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon Vs Smith

Facts

Two drug rehabilitation counselors ingested a powerful hallucinogenic as a part of a religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church

  • They were then fired

The counselors filed for unemployment compensation

  • The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct."

Appellate court reversed this decision, saying that it violated the first amendment

  • state supreme court agreed with this decision

U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees,

  • returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws

The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Question

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

Conclusion

6 - 3 for Employment Division

the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.

Allowing exceptions to state law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.”

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

Facts

The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria.

  • used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut

  • during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten.

After the announcement of a church being in Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice

  • The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.

Question

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

Conclusion

Unanimous decision for the church of Lukumi Babalu Aye

The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable.

The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest

  • the ordinances were applied exclusively to the church.

  • singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends

Only conduct that was tired to religious belief was burdened

Locke v. Davey

Facts

The Washington State Promise Scholarship, created by the state legislature in 1999, gives college scholarship money to talented students

  • Cannot be used in a theology degree if the program is designed to “promote belief”

  • Washington's constitution prohibits funding religious instruction

Joshua Davey forfeited his Promise Scholarship money in order to major in pastoral ministries at a private Christian college.

Davey filed suit in U.S. district court, claiming the state constitution's ban on funding religious instruction violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion (in the U.S. Constitution)

  • The district court rejected Davey's claim

  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Davey's free exercise rights were violated

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?

Conclusion

7 - 2 for Locke

The Court ruled that a state does not violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause when it funds secular college majors but excludes devotional theology majors.

  • "The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction,"

Similarly the Washington Constitution - which explicitly prohibits state money from going to religious instruction - does not violate the free exercise clause.

  • 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.