Con Law Religion Flashcards
(36 cards)
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.
Everson v Board of Ed
In NJ, there was a voucher program established to reimburse parents who sent their children to school using public transportation; Issue: Whether the statute effectuated an impermissible governmental aide to religion by reimbursing parents who sent students to private religious institutions? Answer: No! The law would only indirectly benefit religion…It provided equal resources to both secular and religious institutions. It was simply created to get kids to school.
Walz v Tax Commission
Walz brought suit against the New York City Tax Commission, challenging property tax exemptions for churches. Walz alleged that the exemptions forced him, as a taxpayer, to indirectly contribute to those churches. Issue: Whether property tax exemptions for churches is acceptable under the 1st amendment? Answer: NO! The court reasoned that taxation of churches would be considerably more government interaction with churches than an exemption, and that they wished to accommodate all churches equally. The Court noted that “benevolent neutrality” toward churches and religions was “deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life.”
Texas Monthly v Bullock
Texas Monthly was a secular publication. The state of Texas offered tax exemption for all publication of religious periodicals. Texas claimed that they should at the least be exempt as well, or else the statute violated the 1st amendment’s establishment clause by tacitly endorsing religion. Issue: Whether exempting religious publications from taxes everyone else has to pay violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. Justice Brennan said this law directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations, and in referring to the Lemon Test, concludes the statute had no valid secular purpose.
Lemon v Kurtzman
A PA and a RI law provided public financial support to “church-related educational institutions.” This included some salaries paid to church schools. Issue: Whether support of this kind violates the 1st amendment? Answer: To be constitutional, a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Further, the court noted that in order to ensure that the advancement of religious institutions was not taking place at tax payer expense, the court would be excessively entangled with religious activity.
Lemon Test in 3 Parts
- Does the statute/law have a valid secular purpose?; 2. Does the law neither advance nor inhibit religion?; 3. Does the law foster the excessive entanglement of government and religion?
Mitchell v Helms
The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act provided for funding to schools for secular, non-ideological purposes. In Jefferson Parish Louisiana, there were about 30% of funds going to religious institutions. Issue: Whether this law, as applied to Jefferson Parish, violated the establishment clause? Answer: No. Shockingly, Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion which stated that simply because the law benefited a large number of religious institutions in this region did not mean that it violated the establishment clause. No indoctrination took place at the hands of the gov’t.
Zelman v Simmons-Harris
A school voucher program in Ohio provided parents an opportunity to send their students to private (religious and non-religious) schools on the public dole. In the first year of the program, 96% of individuals using the program sent their students to religious schools. Issue: Whether this voucher program violates the 1st amendment establishment clause? Answer: No(???). The court reasoned that even though the program used government funds to benefit almost exclusively religious individuals, the fact that the deliberate choice of the participants happened to be almost 100% religious did not invalidate the neutrality and validity of the policy.
Wallace v Jaffree
An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree’s children attended public schools in Mobile. Issue: Did Alabama law violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? Answer: Obviously yes. Citing the fact that there is no valid secular purpose for passing this law, the court concluded this law was passed exclusively for the advancement of religion in public schools.
McCollum v Board of Ed
In this case, a group was formed to facilitate a new program which would provide religious instruction to students in public school classes while school was in session. Secular students would just have to go do other stuff. Issue: Whether the policy of providing religious education in public schools violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. The Court found that the Champaign system was “beyond question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith.”
Zorach v Clauson
In the aftermath of McCollum, New York City began a program in which students in public schools could be dismissed from classroom activities for certain periods to participate in religious instruction elsewhere. Issue: Whether the NYC program violates the establishment clause? Answer: The Court held that the “released time” program neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion. The Court noted that public facilities were not being used for the purpose of religious instruction and that “no student was forced to go to the religious classroom.”
Stone v Graham
A TX law required that the 10 commandments be placed in each classroom. Issue: Whether putting the 10 commandments in each class violates the establishment clause? Answer: Yes. There is obviously no secular reason to do this
Epperson v Arkansas
Arkansas tried to legislate the truth away by banning the teaching of evolution in schools. Issue: Whether this anti-evolution bill violated the establishment clause? Answer: The law is clearly not motivated by facts or truth, and only was passed due to the conflict with the book of Genesis.
Edwards v Aguillard
A LA law prohibited the teaching of evolution UNLESS accompanied by “creation science.” Issue: Whether this bill violated the establishment clause? Answer: Pointing to the reasoning in Epperson, it was evident to the court that this law was passed in order to defend the conflicting account of the origin of species found in Genesis.
Board of Ed v Mergens
Students wanted to start an after school christian club. The students alleged that Westside’s refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide “equal access” to student groups seeking to express “religious, political, philosophical, or other content” messages. Issue: Whether the public school could deny access to this christian group (ironically on establishment grounds)? Answer: The school was wrong and should have permitted the group. Since they had provided accommodations for other groups, they should have permitted the christian group access to their facilities. The Equal Access Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of philosophical, religious, etc considerations and thus the school should have permitted them.
Good News Club v Milford Central School
The Good News Club wanted to operate at a school which allowed secular groups. The school said “nuh uh” due to the religious content of the club. Issue: Whether the school’s refusal to offer the Good News Club their accommodations was constitutional? Answer: No. Since the school had allowed access to other secular groups, they had created a limited public forum. This means that any decisions to admit or not admit a group must be viewpoint neutral.
Allegheny County v ACLU
Two holiday displays (one creche and another with a menorah and christmas tree among other things) were erected at the county courthouse. Issue: Whether a county courthouse may erect both/either display? Answer: The creche (nativity scene) was invalidated under the Est Clause, as it stood alone and ostensibly as an endorsement of christianity. The grab bag display was OK because it was multi-faceted and gave no priority to one holiday.
McCreary County v ACLU
The count wanted to post the 10 commandments (with no accompanying documents like say the Bill of Rights) in county buildings. Issue: Whether a county may place the 10 commandments on its property when not for a particular purpose other than to endorse religion? Answer: “When the gov’t acts with the…purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Est Clause value of official religious neutrality.”
Van Orden v Perry
Rather large 10 commandments monuments sat between the TX capitol and SC. It sat among many secular displays and monuments and had been there for decades, and privately donated. Issue: Whether ANY display of the 10 commandments violates the establishment clause? Answer: No. So long as the placement of the 10 commandments can be shown to have some apparent purpose aside from the promotion of one religion or another, it can be held to have a valid secular purpose for its erection.
Lee v Weisman
A school decided that they would have a religious figure put on a religious invocation and benediction at their graduation. My bet is that Weisman was one of the non-christians that sued. Issue: Whether a graduation ceremony may include a prayer service? Answer: No. Kids do not have to be at graduation, but a vast majority elect to attend. In a public school, it amounts to an endorsement of a religion, which violates non-believers’ rights (as well as adherents to other faiths) to not have a particular ideology pushed upon them.
EGUSD v Newdow
Michael Newdow challenged a school policy to lead the students in a voluntary recitation of the flag salute each day, which includes the words “Under God.” Newdow maintained that even being made to listen to “under god” was a tacit endorsement of religion and the Establishment Clause forbade it. Issue: Whether the policy of the school violated the 1st amendment establishment clause? Answer: The court denied the case for lack of standing, but 3 justices (ranging from O’Connor all the way to Thomas) wrote concurring opinions which supported the right of schools to engage in this practice. Keep in mind though: No decision reached.
Santa Fe School District v Doe
The SFSD would regularly had students deliver prayers before varsity football games (team must have sucked). This was challenged as an endorsement of religion. Issue: Whether the est clause is violated when prayers are performed at varsity football games? Answer: Yes. For the court’s liking, the act amounted to an endorsement of religion, and forced students who were there to receive credits (band members, cheerleaders) to listen to a message for which they were a captive audience.
Capitol Square Review v Pinette
The Klan decided to cheer up everyone during the holidays by placing a cross in an area across from the state capitol that was traditionally used for public access/expression of ideas. Their permit was denied on est clause grounds. Issue: Did the Board’s denial of a permit to the Ku Klux Klan violate free speech under the First Amendment? Answer: Even Justice Thomas said “yes, the Klan has that right.” The court said it amounted to being constitutionally equivalent to secular speech, given the forum, and a compelling interest with a narrowly tailored restriction would be necessary to deny the permit.
Salazar v Buono
Salazar wanted to erect a Buddhist monument where a war memorial in the form of a wooden cross had stood for years. He was denied, and sued. He was found to be correct, but the government did a land swap so as to put the monument in private hands, thus rendering moot Salazar’s claim. Issue (upon which the court has so far ruled): Whether the erection of a cross on federal lands violates the establishment clause? Answer: The court stated that with respect to establishment clause challenges, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm”
