Scotus

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”

Wall of Separation

  • Thomas Jefferson’s description of how religion should interact with government

  • 1802- Jefferson assures Baptists in Danbury, CT, that the First Amendment builds a “wall of separation between church and state.”

  • Supreme Court has constructed such a wall over the years

Establishment Clause

  • Only forbids the government from establishing an official region,

  • Prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.

  • Prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

  • Although some governments action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed avoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates

  • Engel v. Vitale declared school sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause.

  • First amendment case with the establishment clause, but also argued the fourteenth amendment and due process clause

Opinion

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Engel because they thought that the prayer violated the first amendment establishment clause. It violated the wall of separation of Church and State 

Question

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the first amendment

Opinion: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Engel 6-1 because they thought that the prayer violated the first amendment establishment clause. 

Constitutional Provisions: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.





Wisconsin v. Yoder(1972)

Context: (1972) The State of Wisconsin enacted a compulsory school attendance law which required all children to attend public or private school until attaining the age of 16.

  • Practitioners of the Amish religion object to formal education beyond the eighth grade because it conflicts with the religious concepts central to their faith,

  • Three residents, all of the Amish faith, declined to send their children, ages 14 and 15, to school after they completed the eighth grade

  • Parents convicted of violating the law and fined $5 each.

Question: Whether Wisconsin's compulsory education law violated Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

Opinion: Yes. The Court concluded that requiring Amish children to attend school beyond the eighth grade would violate their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Specifically, the Court determined that the religious faith of the Amish and their mode of life are inseparable and interdependent

Constitutional Provisions: 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause

Significance: Established the precedent that an individual’s rights to exercise their religious beliefs under the First Amendment takes priority over the interests in compulsory education.


Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

  • Black armbands at school to protest Vietnam War

  • Court said protected symbolic speech

  • Did not interfere at all with school work or security

  • The district court ruled against the Tinker family, then tied in the district court of appeals and because there was a tie the lower court decision stands

  • Arguing that the armband policy was unconstitutional and violated the first amendment under the freedom of speech 

  • The precedent was symbolic speech

  • Des Moines argument was that the armbands were a distraction to learning

Question

  • Do first amendment rights disappear when students enter a public school?

Decision

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tinker with the decision being 7-2 

  • They wrote in the opinion that students do not lose their amendment rights when they walk into a school.

Schenck v. United States

  • Precedent to Gitlow v. New York

  • Charles Schenck is a socialist 

  • Schenck was arguing the 13th amendment tying it to free speech

  • Schenck is convicted for the Espionage Act

Opinion

  • “Civil Liberties are NOT absolute”, especially during wartime 

  • “Time, Place, and Manner Test” leads to the “Clear and Present Danger Test”


  • 1917 Sedition and Espionage Acts outlawed publications that criticized government, advocated treason or insurrection, or incited disloyal behavior in the military

  • Schenk (Philly resident) distributed anti-draft leaflets urging men to resist the draft

  • Court says can outlaw speech that represents a “clear and present danger” by inciting unlawful action (avoiding the draft). It will hurt the US war effort.

    • Said context mattered – during war = NOT OKAY

Question

  • Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of Speech

Decision

  • Unanimous against Schenck. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act


Gitlow v. New York (1925)

  • First case to deal with selective incorporation

  • Context: Gitlow called for strikes (Freedom of Speech) and “class action…in any form” in his Left Wing Manifesto (Freedom of Press)

  • Constitutional Issue (or Question): Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government’s violent overthrow? 

  • Decision: 7-2 against Gitlow 

  • Court upheld the constitutionality of New York’s Criminal Anarchy Statute of 1902, which prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction on the basis that governments may restrict or punish speech “containing or advocating…. By force, violence or any unlawful means.” (especially in times of war)

  • Constitutional Provisions: With Gitlow, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that individuals cannot be “deprived of liberty without due process of law” applies free speech and free press protections to the states

  •  The Gitlow decision marks the beginning of the incorporation doctrine *


Citizenship is the right to have rights



New York Times v. United States

  • The Executive Branch cannot block the printing of reporter-obtained classified government information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the First Amendment’s free press clause.

  • Only ruled on newspaper’s right to print, not the right to leak the secrets (leaker was later indicted)

  • NO prior restraint of the press allowed without meeting “heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint”

  • Background: Vietnam War

  • Military Operations: Secret DOD study about what our soldiers were doing in the Vietnam War

  • Daniel Ellsberg is a whistleblower

  • Nixon uses his implied powers

  • Espionage Act: a U.S. federal law, enacted in 1917, that makes it illegal to spy on, or share secret information that could harm the country, including gathering or conveying information about national defense. 

  • Pentagon Papers

  • 6-3 decision in favor of the New York Times