establishment exam cases Flashcards
(30 cards)
Everson v. Board of Education DATE
1947
Everson v. Board of Education FACTS
New Jersey had a law that reimbursed parents for transportation costs to get their kids to school, including Catholic schools. Someone sued, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause.
Court upheld the law (pro reimbursement) because the law supported ALL students, and was thus not unfairly supporting religion.
First establishment clause case.
Lemon v. Kurtzman DATE
1971
Lemon v. Kurtzman FACTS
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island provided supplemental pay for private religious school teachers, primarily their salaries and instructional materials for secular subjects.
8-1, the court decided the laws were unconstitutional because there was excessive entanglement with the government and religion.
Established the Lemon test–secular purpose, infringing or promoting religion, excessive entanglement.
McGowan v. Maryland DATE
1961
McGowan v Maryland FACTS
Employees of a department store sold some items (like floor wax, notebooks, etc.) to customers on a Sunday, violating Maryland’s blue laws.
8-1, the court decided the blue laws didn’t violate establishment because the present laws are based on “secular rather than religious” interests.
Set the precedent for the secular purpose argument.
Thornton v. Caldor DATE
1983
Thornton v. Caldor FACTS
Thornton worked as a supervisor for a department store and asked to be excused from working Sundays. The store refused but offered to move him to a different store an hour away that was closed on Sundays and cut his pay when he declined.
8-1, the court ruled that the law held that “religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests.”
Lynch v. Donnelly DATE
1984
Lynch v. Donnelly FACTS
Pawtucket, RI put up a Christmas display with Santa, a tree, and a nativity scene every winter for 40 years.
Court ruled that the display did not violate the establishment clause because it had a “legitimate secular purpose” and it wasn’t a purposeful effort to advocate for a particular religious message.
Furthered the argument for cultural heritage and tradition in support of religious displays.
Van Orden v. Perry DATE
2005
Van Orden v. Perry FACTS
Van Orden sued Texas over a monument featuring the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol building.
The Court ruled that no, the monument did not violate the establishment clause.
Set precedent for the argument of that simply having religious content doesn’t mean establishment of that religion.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky DATE
2005
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky FACTS
A courthouse in KY had framed copies of the Ten Commandments inside, was sued for it, then added other historical documents to the courthouse as a museum.
The court ruled that the display did violate the establishment clause.
Just an insane case all around. Shows that displaying religious texts among other documents doesn’t waive the clear endorsement of religion.
Agostini/Aguilar v. Felton DATES
1997, 1985
Agostini/Aguilar v. Felton FACTS
AGUILAR–
NYC used some of its Title I funding to pay salaries of employees in catholic schools.
Court ruled that the funding violated the constitution, and the supervisors required to ensure no religious material was taught were excessive entanglement.
AGOSTINI–
Aguilar prohibited public school teachers from teaching in catholic schools, and this ruling was challenged.
The Court overruled its decision, and added a new view that only policies with an excessive conflict between church and state would be deemed to violate the establishment clause, not all entanglements.
The court’s softening approach to the establishment clause.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris DATE
2002
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris FACTS
Ohio provided tuition aid for students to attend schools of their parent’s choosing. A vast majority of the students using the program were enrolled in religious private schools.
The court ruled that the program didn’t violate the establishment clause because the only reason aid was going to religious institutions was because of the individual endorsements of the public, not the government.
Indicated a major shift towards allowing public funds to go to religious schools.
Locke v. Davey DATE
2003
Locke v. Davey FACTS
A Washington scholarship provided money to students as long as the money wasn’t used to obtain a degree in theology. A student majoring in pastoral ministries as a Christian college sued after giving up his scholarship money.
The Court ruled that no, Washington didn’t violate free exercise because the state had “merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of institution.”
Affirmed that states can avoid funding religion, even if not required to.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez DATE
2010
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez FACTS
A California college didn’t recognize the CLS as an official student organization because the college required student organizations to allow any student to participate, and the CLS required all members to attest that they believe in God.
The court held that the college’s policy was reasonable and neutral, and thus didn’t target any groups in particular.
Case that determined that public universities didn’t need to validate or support religious groups purely because they’re religious.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia DATE
1995
Roseberger v. University of Virginia FACTS
The University of Virginia denied funding to publish a Christian magazine.
The Court held that the University violated the first amendment because it’s not promoting all speech equally.
